UDK 903'1(450.36+497.4)"633\63">330.342.11


Documenta Praehistorica XXXII (2005) 

The ethnography of the Cyclops>
Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic*


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, SI 
dimitrij.mlekuz@guest.arnes.si 

ABSTRACT – Paper discusses archaeological data of the emergence and development of pastoralism 
on the Eastern Adriatic coast from social perspective. Formation of pastoralism is placed in the context of social changes within indigenous hunter-gathering communities. Incorporation of sheep into 
households brought the change in social relations of production and caused fragmentation of communities into independent, mobile households, which did not form complex social structures. 

IZVLE.EK – V prispevku preu.ujem arheolo.ke zapise o nastanku in razvoju pa.ni.tva na vzhodnojadranski obali skozi socialno perspektivo. Za.etek pa.ni.tva postavljam v kontekst dru.benih sprememb lovskonabiralni.kih skupnosti. Vklju.itev ovac v gospodnistva je povzro.ila spremembo dru.
benih odnosov proizvodnje in vodila k razpadu skupin na neodvisna, mobilna godpodinjstva, ki niso 
sestavljala kompleksinih socialnih struktur. 

KEY WORDS – pastoralism; Mesolithic; Neolithic; eastern Adriatic 

INTRODUCTION 

This paper is an attempt to write a long-term ethnography of communities in the eastern Adriatic, covering a time span approaching 5000 years. My principal aim is to explore the development and structure 
of pastoralism on the east Adriatic coast from a social 
perspective. However, the main focus is on the very 
short period of transformation of hunter-gatherers 
into pastoralists. I argue that this transformation was 
a revolutionary change among indigenous groups 
which brought a new set of social relations, a different way of life and a different perception of landscape. Thus communities akin to Homer’s Cyclops 
emerged: small, mobile, autarchic households, with 
their daily life focused on herding sheep and goats. 

CONTINUITY OR CHANGE: THE MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC TRANSITION ON THE EASTERN ADRIATIC 
COAST 

If archaeological data used in the construction of 
meaningful statements about the past are perceived 
through a cloud of theory, then we should be extremely careful when choosing the concepts we use to 

understand the archaeological record. One such problematic concepts often used uncritically is that the 
of Neolithic. Julian Thomas (1993) has demonstrated in his deconstruction of ‘the Neolithic’ that, although the precise meaning of the concept has changed, it has always been represented as a totality, an 
entity that can be analysed as a coherent whole. He 
suggests a different understanding of the word: 

…we have to consider not a thing but a field composed of sometimes interlocking and sometimes 
unrelated social practices and traditions, elaborated by numerous relays and resistances. Over time 
some of them decline in their importance, and 
others emerge (for example, megaliths), while the 
whole is continually geographically variable. The 
Neolithic has to be broken down, and recognized 
as something fragmented and dispersed, localised 
in its effects, with no overall direction or intention behind it (Thomas 1993.390). 

This is the path I to pursue in this brief review of 
the archaeological record from the eastern Adriatic. 

* This paper is based on PhD thesis, defended at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. I would 
like to thank Dr. Mihael Budja who supervised and guided my PhD dissertation. 
(text) © 2005 Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta - Univerza v Ljubljani, SI

Dimitrij Mleku/ 

I will try to demonstrate that there were different 
pathways which led to the mosaic of different social 
practices grouped under ‘the Neolithic’. They may 
have many in common, but they also diverge in fundamental ways. 

Continuity or ‘gap’? 

Several Mediterranean Holocene stratigraphic sequences show a hiatus between the Mesolithic and Neolithic occupations of at least several centuries if not 
several millennia. This ‘gap’ is often used as evidence 
of demographic depopulation – even extinction – of 
indigenous groups and as favouriing a demic diffusion model: 

Thus it is possible to conclude that when the Neolithization of the Adriatic coastline took place the 
Holocene hunter-gatherers totally disappeared. All 
the above-mentioned data seem to support the Neolithic expansion hypothesis proposed by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza (Biagi and Starnini 1999. 
12). 

In this perspective the role of Mesolithic communities in the process of Neolithisation in the eastern 
Adriatic is marginalised, minimal and passive. 

However, I want to argue that the concept of a ‘gap’ 
is highly problematic, and not supported by evidence. Firstly, Mesolithic settlement patterns should 
not be interpreted in a reductionist manner, as the 
proponents of the ‘gap’ theory do. A Mesolithic settlement pattern is not just a distribution of points 
in space, points that can be studied in isolation and 
without reference to the wider context. Instead, a 
settlement pattern is a remnant of wider economic, 
demographic and social structures. The long-term reproduction – social and demographic – of such structures is reflected in a stable settlement pattern. In 
this perspective the Mesolithic record becomes a densely or loosely connected network spanning large 
areas: 

Much of the Balkan Peninsula is covered by extensive forager breeding networks, most of which 
were large, except in exceptionally rich environments such as the Iron Gates Gorge of the Danube. 
These networks were the mechanism by which 
physical and social reproduction were maintained, and stimulated widespread, if low-density exchange of exotic materials and/or finished arte

1 6610±40 BP (Poz–8053) and 6640±50 BP (Poz–8054). 

facts (Wobst 1974; 1976; Chapman 1990) [Chapman 1994.143]. 

Thus ‘gaps’ in the stratigraphic or radiocarbon sequences of a particular site do not necessarily reflect 
demographic breaks and depopulations, but may be 
the result of changed mobility patterns or site use. 
Gaps, especially if they appear synchronously over 
a wider area, may be considered as evidence of shifts 
in settlement pattern. But as long as there is some 
evidence of human occupation in a region, then 
some form of demographic and social regional continuity is plausible. 

Current distributions of Mesolithic sites are biased 
due to the rise of sea levels during the Holocene, 
and the Mesolithic settlement pattern is biased in 
favour of upland caves throughout the Dinarides, 
while there is a selective field survey bias in favour 
of lowland, open-air Neolithic sites (Chapman 1994. 
133). 

However, there are clear concentrations of Mesolithic sites along the eastern Adriatic coast, with evidence of regional continuity. The occupation of the 
Triestine Karst caves ends abruptly at the end of the 
early Mesolithic. There are caves with evidence of 
both Mesolithic and Neolithic occupation, but the 
hiatus between the ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ occupations of Edera is about 1100 years. However, trapezoidal microliths have been found in contexts 
from Edera/Stena.ca, Benussi/Pejca na Sedlu, Azzura/Pe.ina na Leskovcu, Tartaruga, Trincea, Monrupino, Zingari/Ciganska jama, Lonza, VG 4246 (Montagnari Kokelj 1993) and Mala Triglavca (Leben 1988; 
Turk et al. 2004). The stratigraphic sequence from 
Benussi has been as from approximately 9400 to 
7900 cal BP. This date overlaps at double standard 
deviation with radiocarbon dates from ‘Neolithic’ 
contexts from Edera (context 3a), Podmol pri Kastelcu (layer 13),1 and Pupi.ina in Istria. However, 
the only ‘Neolithic’ feature of these contexts is large 
number of domesticates and – in the case of Edera – 
pottery. Nevertheless, domesticates (sheep or goats) 
were also identified in a ‘Mesolithic’ context at Grotta Benussi (Riedel 1975). And although we do not 
have evidence for radiocarbon continuity, it is clear 
that there is evidence for regional Mesolithic-Neolithic continuity in the Triestine Karst. 

A similar situation exists in Istria. Although there is 
abundant evidence of human occupation in the late 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

Pleistocene and early Holocene, there are almost no 
late Mesolithic sites (Malez 1979; Malez et al. 1979; 
Malez 1987; Miracle et al. 2000). The radio-carbon 
gap between ‘Mesolithic’ and ‘Neolithic’ in Pupi.ina 
is about 1800 years (Miracle 1997). In Pupi.ina (and 
also in Edera) are Mesolithic and Neolithic layers separated by an erosional surface. On the other hand, 
we have a very radiocarbon date (7400 cal BP)2 
from the Mesolithic context in Podsojna pe. (Malez 
1987). This date is ealier than the ‘Neolithic’ date 
from Pupi.ina and the lowland site at Vi.ula, which 
proves the co-existence of ‘Neolithic’ and ‘Mesolithic’ 
communities in Istria. 

There are many sites with evidence of both Mesolithic and Neolithic occupation in Dalmatia and the 
Kvarner Islands, Vela jama on Lo.inj (Malez 1979; 
.e.uk 1982), Jamina Sredi on Cres Island (Mirosavljevi. 1971; .e.uk 1982), Vagana.ka pe.ina on Mt. 
Velebit (Forenbaher and Vranjican 1985), Vogranska pe. on Island Krk, Kopa.ina .pilja on Bra., an 
open-air site at Lopari on on the island of Rab (Malez 1979), Ledenice 
(Batovi. 1973), Podum.i (Malez 
1979), Glavi.ica, Okrugla, Gospodska and Pe.ina u Brini (Malez 1979), 
and Vela spila on the island of Kor.ula (.e.uk and Radi. 2001; Bo.uk 
and Radi. 2002). Those sites located on the Islands and in the Karst 
hinterland and, an intensive survey 
of the Ravni kotari lowlands in 
Northern Dalmatia yielded no Mesolithic sites (Chapman et al. 1996). 

Similar situation can be found in the 
south, with number of caves in carstic hinterland in Montenegro, such 
as Crvena stijena (Benac 1975), Odmut (Srejovi. 1974; Markovi. 1985; 
Koz³owski et al. 1994), Medena stijena (Mihajlovi. 1996), Mali.ina stjena, Treba.ki kr. (Mihajlovi. and Dimitrijevi. 1999) and Zelena pe.ina 
(Benac 1958) in Hercegovina. 

On the other hand, clear evidence 
for stratigraphic and radiocarbon 
continuity is available from some 
sites. The clearest example comes 

2 6400±95 BP (Z–198). 

from a shell midden site at Sidari on Korfu Island 
(Sordinas 1969). The shell midden was deposited during the Mesolithic. The earliest ‘Neolithic’ horizon 
contains abundant monochrome pottery, stone tools 
in the ‘Mesolithic’ tradition, and sheep and goat bones. There is no stratigraphic break between the latest Mesolithic and the earliest Neolithic horizon. 
However, a horizon with impressed ware, is separated by a sterile layer. Another example is Odmut cave 
in Montenegro (Srejovi. 1974; Koz³owski et al. 
1994), which shows a continuity of occupation from 
the earliest to the latest Mesolithic.3 Similar evidence 
for continuity comes from Konispol cave in Albania, 
with evidence of continuous occupation of the cave 
during the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition, although 
there is approximately a 100 year gap between the 
earliest Neolithic and the latest Mesolithic radiocarbon dates (Russell 1998; Schuldenrein 1998). 

Another issue that has to be considered in the discussion of Mesolithic/Neolithic continuity is evidence 

Fig. 1. Some of the sites and places discussed in the text. 
3 This sequence, excavated in the ‘seventies, is not without problems. If the new interpretation by Kowzlowski et al. (1994) is 
correct, there is a 300 year gap between the Mesolithic and Neolithic layers. On the other hand, the bones of domesticated goat 
were identified in late Mesolithic contexts. 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

of erosional surfaces between Neolithic and Mesolithic layers. This feature separates two different types 
of sedimentation, reworked loess and wood ash deposits typical of Mesolithic occupation, and layered 
heaps of ashes and charcoal typical of the Neolithic 
use of the caves. Erosional surfaces were noted at 
many sites, including Edera, Caterina, Azzura, Zingari and Lonza (Boschian and Montagnari Kokelj 
2000) and Pupi.ina (Miracle 1997). Processes that 
formed erosional surfaces removed evidence of the 
latest Mesolithic occupation. This can be clearly seen 
in the case of Grotta Lonza, where the Mesolithic layer, cut by the eroded surface, is filled with a layer 
containing pottery (Meluzzi et al. 1984). In Grotta 
Azzura intact Mesolithic layers were found in a test 
trench in the front of the cave; the test trench inside 
the cave contained only traces of Castelnovian layers 
(Cremonesi et al. 1984). Erosional discontinuities 
may demonstrate intensive anthropogenous modifications of cave interiors, which happened at least 
once, at the beginning of Neolithic, and which destroyed evidence of late Mesolithic occupation. This 
interruption also marks a completely different use of 
caves: from gatherings of people in the ‘Mesolithic’ 
to animal shelters or stables in the ‘Neolithic’. This 
can explain the presence of Castelnovian microliths 
in Neolithic deposits (Montagnari Kokelj 1993.75) 

and the presence of ‘anomalous’ radiocarbon dates 
and inversion in radiocarbon sequences. 

Further eveidence which speaks against the ‘gap’ are 
the finds of domestic animals in Mesolithic contexts 
along the Adriatic coast. These collections are considered as highly problematic and were attributed to 
the various ‘taphonomic filters’ (Guilaine 1993; Zilhao 1993; Rowley-Conwy 1995; 2003). However, 
they were never subjected to any serious analysis 
and often actively dismissed as ‘intrusions’. This attitude towards these finds is clearly more informative 
about authors’ assumptions about what the ‘Neolithic’ is than the actual archaeological record. These 
finds on the Eastern Adriatic coast are too numerous 
(Tab. 1) to be simply dissmised. Instead of treating 
them as – in the best case – anomalies, I want to include them in the discussion, as another evidence of 
active role of indigenous groups in adopting new innovations. Instead as simplistic indicators of ‘avabillity phase’ (Zvelebil 1986; 1995; 2001), can these 
animals be viewed as active agents, which played an 
important role in prestige competitions within and 
among Mesolithic groups (Mleku. 2003) and become 
the medium for the reproduction of new social relations of production. I will develop this argument 
below. 

Site Context Date Ovicaprid NISP References 
Grotta Azzura 4 Mesolithic 12 Cremonesi et al. 1984< 
Wilkens 1991 
Grotta Benussi 5 
4 
3 
8380±70 BP R–1045 
7620±150 BP R–1044 
7050±60 BP R–1043 
5 
8 
9 
Riedel 1975 
Podmol pri Kastelcu 13 6610±40 BP Poz–8053 
6640±50 BP Poz–8054 
6 Turk et al. 1992 
Pod :rmukljo Mesolithic 1 Pohar 1986 
Vagana;ka pe;ina 1 Mesolithic || Forenbaher and Vranjican 1985 
Crvena stijena VI Mesolithic || Malez 1975 
Odmut I 9135±80 BP Si–2228 
8590±100 BP Si–2224 
7790±70 BP Si–2226 
7080±85 BP Si–2227 
|| Srejovic´ 1974 
Vela spila VII\1998 Mesolithic 6 Ku/ir et al. 2005 
{andalja B\g, B\s Mesolithic| || Brajkovic´ 2000 
Pupic´ina pec´ L19–21 6600±240 BP Z–2575 11 Miracle 1997 
Grotta dell’Edera 3a 6700±130 BP GX–19569 
6620±60 BP GrA–19912 
6510±70 BP GrN–27229 
6480±40 BP GrN–25474 
6390±60 BP GrN–19820 
53 Boschin and Riedel 2000 

Tab. 1. Finds of ovicaprines in Mesolithic contexts of Eastern Adriatic.



The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

The final set of evidence which challenges the demographic gap comes from the modern gene pool, especially Y-chromosome haplogroups. The population 
of the south-eastern Adriatic islands of Bra., Hvar 
and Kor.ula has the highest frequencies reported in 
Europe to date (54–66%) of haplogroup I, which originates before the last glacial maximum. High frequencies of haplogroup I imply demographic stability since the last Glacial Maximum in the Western 
Balkans and directly refutes migration or demic diffusion models. Haplogroups J, G and E which can be 
related to the spread of farming, characterise a minor proportion (12.5%) of Croatian paternal lineages 
(Bara. et al. 2003). 

What, then, is Neolithic? 

The recognition of the Neolithic on the eastern Adriatic coast traditionally relies on the presence of pottery. However, even from this reductionist perspective we have exclusive interpretations. Batovi. was 
the first to emphasise the Mesolithic/Neolithic continuity and the internal development of the east Adriatic Neolithic. In his model, indigenous groups adopted pottery through exchange and adoption, whereas domesticates and farming caught up later and 
were fully integrated only at the end of the early 
Neolithic (Batovi. 1966; 1979). A similar position 
was adopted by Ruth Tringham (1971), who makes 
a strong case for continuity from Late Mesolithic to 
impressed ware based on the continuity of lithic technology and the association of wild fauna with impressed ware (Crvena stjena, Jama na Sredi and Vogranska pe.). 

Other authors gave importance to the colonisation 
processes. Johannes Müller (1994) demonstrated the 
importance of the Adriatic bridge for the diffussion 
of pottery styles from Apulia. Chapman and Müller 
(1990) detected a directional trend in the distribution of radiocarbon dates consistent with the local 
diffusion of the Neolithic way of life from Apulia, 
southern Dalmatia to the Kvarner Islands and Istria. 
In their scenario, the Triestine Karst remained a 
hunters’ refugee zone well into the 6th millennium 
BC, when indigenous groups in Montenegro hinterland hunted goats derived from coastal farmers. 

Although there are some isolated finds of impresso 
pottery in the Triestine karst, Lawrence Barfield 
(Barfield 1971; Montagnari Kokelj 1998) defined 
middle Neolithic ‘Vla.ka group’ as the first Neolithic 
culture in the area. It emerged as a result of contacts 
of indigenous hunter-gatherers with the eastern Adriatic middle Neolithic cultures Danilo and Kakanj. 

Forenbaher and Miracle (2005) have recently elaborated Chapman and Müller’s model and suggested 
a two-stage model for the spread of farming along 
the eastern Adriatic coast based on the first appearance of pottery. The initial stage was a very rapid 
migration into southern Dalmatia, associated with 
cave sites, where the second stage was a slower agropastoral expansion associated with open-air and cave 
sites along the northern coast. The mountainous hinterland formed an agricultural frontier zone, where 
farming was adopted piecemeal by indigenous 
groups. They base their argument on pottery only 
and treat the east Adriatic Neolithic as an unified object. However, Chapman and Müller (1990) clearly 
demonstrated that an integrated Neolithic package – 
domesticated plants and animals, pottery and polished stone tools – can be identified only at open-air 
sites. 

The Neolithic on the eastern Adriatic coast is not a 
homogenous and totalising entity. It has different 
forms, which are the results of different processes, 
which led to the adoption of novel resources. 

I believe that a key to the transition to farming on 
the eastern Adriatic coast is hidden in the structural 
dichotomy of settlement patterns (Müller 1994.62). 
The Neolithic settlement pattern is dual and complementary. Its first components were open-air settlements located in lowland, seasonally flooded areas 
suitable for early agriculture. They usually yield evidence of architecture, large quantities of pottery, and 
domesticated plants and animals. They are ‘flat’, with 
no evidence of older occupation of the area. They 
can be interpreted as villages, no different from early 
Thessalanian or early Central Balkan Neolithic sites. 

Cave sites are in sharp contrast to open-air sites, located in mountainous areas, away from lowlands 
suitable for cultivation. They are marked by low densities of pottery and animal bones, the majority of 
which are ovicaprines. Cave sites are usually ‘deep’ 
with long occupational histories, often extending into the Palaeolithic. These can be interpreted as seasonal hunting or herding camps. There are differences 
the in density of pottery on the range of magnitude. 

I believe that the dichotomy between caves and villages is deeper, and reflects not only the the different processes which led to the eastern Adriatic ‘Neolithic’. What is Neolithic on the eastern Adriatic coast, 
and how can it be recognised? I have tried to demonstrate that the concepts of Mesolithic and Neolithic 
are too fuzzy to have any heuristic or interpretative 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

use. Many authors have tried to avoid this by adopting the simplistic and reductionist position that Neolithic is a total phenomenon which can be identified 
by only one component of the ‘Neolithic package’. 
My position is different. I want to argue that what 
we call ‘Neolithic’ on the eastern Adriatic coast is not 
a total phenomenon, but a mosaic of different social 
practices. The mosaic of contexts, with different components of the ‘Neolithic package’, do not yield evidence of ‘One Neolithic’ but is a reflection of the various social practices that existed along the eastern 
Adriatic coast. There is no single ‘Neolithisation’ of 
the Eastern Adriatic, but “several related but different processes, spanning several millenia and following distinctive regional and local trajectories” (Halstead 1996b.306). 

We can observe at least two trajectories of ‘Neolithisation’ along the eastern Adriatic coast, and a number of different ‘Mesolithics’ and ‘Neolithics’. The first 
trajectory can be described as a process of the integration of external innovations within the established social practices of indigenous hunter-gatherers. This trajectory begins with the formation of Mesolithic social (exchange and kinship) networks. 
These networks enabled the social and demographic 
reproduction of hunter-gatherers over a wider area, 
and were a medium for the dispersal of prestige 
items and exotic animals well beyond the ‘agricultural frontier’. Consequently, in some late Mesolithic 
contexts in the eastern Adriatic the first domesticates appear. These finds are rare, and in some cases 
the evidence is most unconvincing, but they became 
more common and numerous in some very late Mesolithic contexts, such as Sidari on Corfu, or Grotta 
dell’Edera/Stena.ca in the Triestine Karst. Firstly, undecorated or monochrome pottery appears. Presence 
of impressed ware pottery is often the only diagnostic elements for the first ‘Neolithic’ contexts, as some 
context contain remains of only or predominately 
wild fauna and lithic tools made in a ‘Mesolithic’ 
tradition. However, domestic animals, especially ovicaprines, are usually the main component of faunal 
assemblages. This demonstrates that the process of 
adoption of innovations was not unilinear and homogenous, but elaborated by numerous relays and 
resistances. However, the main change visible in the 
archaeological record is the new use of caves. If they 
were gathering of people in ‘Mesolithic’, sedimentation of ash from burnt animal dung, show that caves 
were now used as shelters for domestic animals. 

A different, but related trajectory of Neolithisation 
begins around 7600 cal BP with the establishment 

of open-air sites located in areas suitable for cultivation, and containing an integrated ‘Neolithic package’. These communities practiced an agro-pastoral 
way of life very similar to other early Neolithic village communities in Greece or the Central Balkans. 
Open-air settlements appear almost synchronously 
along the Adriatic coast around 7600 cal BP. This 
process is similar to the spread of cardial ware in 
the Western Mediterranean: 

... at a level of resolution allowed by radiocarbon 
dating, the spread of Cardial farmers and shepherds could be described as a punctuated event, 
not the outcome of a slow, regular, east-west spread 
from one contiguous area to the next (Zilhao 1997. 
21). 

In analogy to the processes in the western Mediterranean the emergence of open-air sites can be attributed to the leapfrog colonisation (Zvelebil and Lillie 2000.62) of farming groups, which targeted niches suitable for early farming – especially the floodplains in Ravni Kotari, Zagora and Red Istria. 

However, pottery and domesticates emerged before 
the establishment of farming villages. East Adriatic 
hunter-gatherers participated in exchange and demographic networks. 

I believe that the advent of the Neolithic on the eastern Adriatic coast should be seen through a perspective of continuity and change. Continuity of social 
reproduction on the east Adriatic coast can be seen 
in the ways that exogenous innovations (pottery, domesticates) were absorbed by indigenous population 
and used as tools in the existing social system. I believe that it is extremely simplistic to understand 
these changes as a result of population change. Instead, I will focus on the mechanisms of internal social dynamics which led to changes in the archaeological record that are traditionally classified as ‘Neolithic’. 

BEYOND SUBSISTENCE: MODES OF PRODUCTION 

My discussion of social dynamics which lead from 
hunting and gathering to pastoralism will be structured around the concept of mode of production, a 
focal analytical tool in Marxist analyses of political 
economy. Maurice Godelier (1977) defines mode of 
production as a “combination – which is capable of 
reproducing itself – of productive forces and specific social relations of production which determine 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

the structure and form of the process of production 
and the circulation of material goods within a historically determined society”. 

The productive forces include the means of production (raw materials, land, tools, and machines) and 
the organization of production (labour power). The 
forces of production determine the possibilities and 
the constraints of the productive process, but the specific patterns of allocation and stratification are determined by the social relations of production (Godelier 1977.36). These social relations determine the 
economic use that is made of the environment, the 
division of productive labour, the forms of appropriation and distribution of the social product, and the 
value of the surplus in relation to the costs of reproduction and the utilization of the surplus (Friedman 
1974.446). 

Ambiguities in Marx’s own formulations have allowed economic and technological determinist interpretations of the relationships between productive 
forces and the social relations of production. But it 
should be noted that the distinction between infrastructure and superstructure is not between institutions; it is a distinction between different functions 
within a single institution (Godelier 1978; 1980). 

Godelier redefined infrastructure to encompass the 
processes that produce not only the material preconditions of social life, but all its pre-conditions – 
including e.g. kinship, which anthropologists had 
long claimed to have a status similar to a Marxist infrastructure. Godelier (1978) thus suggested that in 
early, pre-class societies, kinship relations are also 
relations of production and distribution and they 
are the dominant and determinant relations of production. The determination of the main organization 
of production at the infrastructural level of kinship 
is one way of facing the dilemma presented in preindustrial societies to Marxist analyses, namely between the decisive role accorded by the theory to 
economic forces and the fact that the dominant economic relations are in quality superstructural e.g 
kinship relationships (Terray 1969; Godelier 1972). 
Thus kinship, chieftainship and even ritual order appear as economic forces (Sahlins 1972.102). 

An essential premise of Marxism is that humans are 
motivated by self-interest and motivated to accumulate power in order to extend that self-interest. People’s interests become antagonistic to others' since 
they are involved in social relations for the production of materials and food, and for the reproduction 

of the social institutions which articulate that production. Marx and Engels defined two domains where 
contradictions can appear. The first is the inter-relationship between forces and relations of production. 
The second kind of contradictions exists between the 
appropriation and consumption of the surplus and 
the social organization of its production. If “the history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of 
class struggle” (Marx and Engels 1968.35), how can 
these concepts be applied to pre-capitalist societies? 

Domestic mode of production 

Marshall Sahlins (1972) identified a mode of production in foraging, simple farming or pastoralist societies. The principal relations of productions in the 
“domestic mode of production”' are those within the 
household. The division of labour by gender is the 
dominant form; marriage therefore establishes a generalised economic group. Production is motivated 
by the subsistence needs of the household (production for use) and therefore harbours an anti-surplus 
principle. However, the household unit is never completely self-sufficient, but given the emphasis on use 
values and livelihood, production is set low and, consequently, resources are often under-used. 

Sahlins recognised two sets of contradictions inherent in the domestic mode of production. The first 
contradiction is the structural opposition between 
the forces and relations of production, where domestic control becomes an impediment to the development of productive means. This contradiction is reduced by the ‘horizontal’ contradiction between the 
household economy and the society at large, the domestic system and the greater institutions in which 
it is inscribed. The household is never entirely submerged in the larger community, nor are domestic 
ties ever free from conflicts from wider kin relationships. Sahlins believe that this conflict is masked by 
an uncritical ideology of reciprocity (Sahlins 1972. 
124). These two contradictions determine the transformational vectors of the domestic mode of production. 

The ‘centripetal’ vector has roots in the first contradiction and leads to an intensification of production, 
where the demands of descent groups, marital alliances of different structures, or even interpersonal 
kin networks of different patterns encourage or even 
demand surplus domestic labour. But the formal 
solidarity of the kinship structure can be transmitted 
to its political aspect. As the kinship structure is politicised, especially when it is centralised in its rul


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

ing chiefs, the household economy is mobilised in 
a larger social cause. Political life can be a stimulus 
to production which generates surpluses. However, 
Sahlins notes that material flow in simple societies 
tends to be away from accumulation towards insufficiency. This often takes the form of consumption – 
competitive feasts – where is masked by generalized 
reciproci-competitive battles between individuals – 
accumulators – trade of goods is masked behind the 
ideological facade of generalized reciprocity. Feasts 
serve to promote ideology This vector leads to emergence of ‘big-man’ societies. 

On the other hand we have a ‘centrifugal’ force, 
which leads to weaker kinship relationships and the 
economic isolation of individual households. Sahlins 
believes that realisation of this contradiction entails 
economic collapse, where there is not enough surplus to sustain relations of reciprocal sociability, and 
results in separate proprietary interests, which is 
overcome through an ideology of generalised reciprocity. However, it is in times of crises that the ideological screen of reciprocity is removed and proprietary interests become explicit. 

I will tackle this transformation of the domestic mode 
of production in the following section, following the 
model proposed by Tim Ingold (1980) based on his 
fieldwork among Arctic reindeer pastoralists. 

From hunting to pastoralism 

The transition from hunting and gathering to pastoralism is more than merely the incorporation of new 
resources into hunter-gatherer societies, but a qualitative infrastructural change. The source of this discontinuity comes from new social relations of production (Ingold 1980.94). 

Hunting and gathering is based on a principle of undivided access to productive resources (or sharing)4, 
both land and animals. However, this right does not 
extend to the consumption of the products, which 
serve rather to disguise obligatory sharing as prestige-conferring generosity (Ingold 1980.161). In the 
hunter-gatherer mode of production, social relations 
of productions are reproduced in the interval between the kill and consumption of animals. The accumulation of material wealth within the social relations of production is not possible, as dead animals 
can not reproduce. Hunter-gatherers developed a se

ries of social and ideological practices to encourage 
the distribution of game and the reproduction of the 
ideological principle of sharing. Successful individuals may subvert this ideological principle to accumulate prestige. However, the individual possession of 
dead animals in a hunting society exists only in the 
domain of ideology, and does not reflect an underlying principle of divided access. 

The incorporation of tame animals in a human household, where animals gain the status of quasi-persons is the first pre-condition for pastoralism. Tame 
animals are ubiquitous in hunter-gatherer societies, 
where they have the role of pets, hunting assistants 
(dogs), transport animals or decoys (reindeer). They 
are members of households and subject to the same 
rules as human members. 

Pastoral property relations become explicit when 
the status of animals changes from agents of production to sources of food. It is also a change in animals’ 
status from quasi-persons to resources. 

Sharing out – the distribution of food – reaches its 
widest extent in times of extreme shortage (Ingold 
1980.152). This is in direct opposite to Sahlins (1972. 
123–48) view, but the principle that ‘no one starves 
unless all are starving’ which Evans Prichard (1951. 
132) observed among Nuer is even more valid for 
the hunter-gatherers. But this can only be achieved 
at the expense of the deterioration of intra-domestic 
relations. The ultimate realisation of this extreme is 
marked by changes in the status of members of the 
household, their conversion into food, whose consumption is limited to the household. This applies 
more usually – although not exclusively – to domestic animals. Pastoralism thus begins with the negation of social relations within the household, where 
the status of animals is reduced from quasi-persons 
to food (Ingold 1980.150–61). 

Animals in the pastoral mode of production become 
means of reproducing the social relations of pastoral production. Reproduction and the multiplication 
of domestic animals make possible the accumulation 
of wealth (Ingold 1980.144). The slaughter of domestic animals frees people from obligations of sharing 
that apply in the case of hunted animals. Social fragmentation into autonomous, self-sufficient domestic 
units is therefore not the cause, but the effect of drawing on domestic herds for subsistence. Thus auto

4 Ingold (1986) emphasised two structurally different forms of sharing. Sharing out is a act of distributing resources, whereas 
sharing in is a principle of undivided access to resources, which inheres in hunter-gatherer social relations and practices. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

nomy in the realm of property characteristic of the 
pastoral household derives from a domestic division 
of labour, and ultimately forms the structure of the 
human family itself (Ingold 1980.151). The rationality of accumulation follows the fragmentation of 
economic responsibility, for whereas hunters derive 
a collective security through the ideology of sharing, 
pastoralists ensure themselves against catastrophes 
by maximizing their herds (Ingold 1980.89). 

In Ingold’s model, animals must be capable of functioning both as labour and its subject-matter in order 
to support a direct transformation from hunting to 
pastoralism. This includes reindeer, which are often 
used as draught animals or hunting decoys in hunter-
gatherer groups, but excludes sheep and goats, which 
cannot be employed as transport animals. It is therefore scarcity of prey that encourages owners of domestic herds to draw off from their domestic herds. 

But on the eastern Adriatic coast the animals involved 
in transition from hunting and gathering to pastoralism were obviously ovicaprines, goats and sheep. 
Are there any other trajectories of transformation 
from hunting-gathering to pastoralism? 

I believe that pressures on households to begin transforming their animal members into food might be 
found in the context of prestige politics (Hayden 
1990; Dietler 2001; Hayden 2001; Hayden 2003). 
Exotic domestic animals – sheep and goats – may 
become available through hunter-gatherer exchange 
networks. They are included in the households of 
successful middlemen who control exchange networks (Bender 1978; Bender 1981). The demand 
for surplus and exotic foodstuffs in competitive battles among prestige-aspiring individuals may result 
in a chain of events as in Ingold's scenario. Wealthy 
accumulators would use their own exotic animals to 
attract followers. Those animals – although shared 
out – are beyond the obligations of sharing that apply in the case of hunted animals. When they begin 
to reproduce in hunter-gathering societies they also 
reproduce new relations of production. This opens 
the way to the accumulation of wealth, and leads to 
the fragmentation of economic responsibility. Animals, formerly used to promote social cohesion and 
integration, at the point when they become a source 
of food actually reverse this process and lead to the 
fragmentation of society into autonomous households. 

Carnivorous vs. milch pastoralism 

The accumulation of the herds as the exclusive property of particular households is a for the condition 

of emergence of what Ingold calls ‘carnivorous pastoralism’. Carnivorous pastoralism is no more effective than hunting. In the long term it is often less 
effective because of the age structure of herds being 
biased towards older animals, high concentrations 
of animals on pastures, and increasing vulnerability 
to diseases. Carnivorous pastoralism can not be seen 
as intensification of hunting, but as a mode of production with the complete autonomy of the household in the sphere of its property characteristics (Ingold 1980.87). 

Carnivorous pastoralism is a small stock economy, 
with no possibility of conversion to large stock (Ingold 1980.178). Small stock is usually exploited for 
meat; although milked on occasion, it is not specialised for this purpose. The have very high rates of 
increase – up to ten times greater than that of cattle 

– but they are particularly vulnerable to epidemics 
(Dahl and Hjort 1976). With no alternative form of 
security avalaible, a household is forced to accumulate herds by minimalising their off-take. Carnivorous pastoralism thus combines a restriction of household size with a tendency toward the maximal concentration of animals. Households in carnivorous pastoralism avoid reciprocal obligations beyond the 
household: “the successful pastoralist hoards rather 
than hosts” (Paine 1971.167). This leads to what 
Barth calls a “very careful life”. Hospitality is definitely not a feature of carnivorous pastoralism. 
Sheep and goats are gregarious by nature and may 
not require too much labour. On the other hand, 
large stock require more management, which places 
constraints on the number of animals that can be 
maintained by a single household. Resource extraction from milch animals constitutes an essential part 
of their everyday care, which means greater labour 
demand, whereas extraction from meat animals coincides with the end of care. The milch pastoralist’s 
wealth in large stock is therefore equal to the abundance of labour force, women and children. Thus 
the availability of labour sets a limit on herd size. 

This enables alternative forms of security to emerge. 
The main strategy is the circulation or redistribution 
of stock among households. Wealthy owners whose 
holdings exceed the maximum manageable size will 
find it mutually advantageous to loan or give some 
animals to other households. Conversely, if someone man is short of animals, they may seek gifts or 
loans from the better-off (Dahl and Hjort 1976.136– 
37). Animals produce milk for the household where 
they are situated, irrespective of who owns a parti


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

cular animal; however, the owner retains control 
over the slaughter of an animal and over its offspring. 

Alternatively, complementary types of animals allows poorer households to exploit the high reproductive potential of small stock to build their herds 
and then exchange them for larger stock (Dahl and 
Hjort 1976.230–34). While in a carnivorous pastoral economy a herd is the exclusive property of the 
household, households in milch pastoralism spread 
their interests by distributing animals as gifts and 
loans to a range of stock-associates. Milch herds typically consists of animals from a number of separate 
owners under the management of a single household. This establishes a network of social relations 
between households which are reflected in herds. 
Animals become symbols of social cohesion (cf. 
Evans-Pritchard 1940). 

Another difference between carnivorous and milch 
pastoralism lies in the different status of animals. 
While animals in carnivorous pastoralism become 
resources, the staus of animals in milch pastoralism 
is not unlike that of tame animals in hunter-gatherer 
societies. Milk animals produce milk and are therefore agents of labour rather of its subject. In terms 
of social relations between animals and people and 
between people with respect to animals, milch pastoralim has nothing in common with the exploitation 
of domestic herds for meat. Carnivorous and milch 
pastoralism are not related modes of production (Ingold 1980.200). 

ETHNOGRAPHIC MEAT ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL 
BONES? 

Distinguishing different types of pastoralism on the 
basis of social relations between animals and people 
and between people with respect to animals is extremely important when discussing ethnographic data 
as an analogy for past pastoral systems. Could the 
exceptionally rich ethngraphic data on various pastoral strategies from the Dinarides and the eastern 
Adriatic coast shed any light on the structure and development of Neolithic pastoralism? My suggestion 
is that the ethnographic and historical data on traditional subsistence strategies should be approached 
with caution. 

There is a variety of different pastoral systems recorded in the Dinarides and the eastern Adriatic (Dedijer 1916; Leban 1950; Umek 1956; Cviji. 1966; 

Markovi. 1971; 1980; Smerdel 1989; Vin..ak 1989; 
Smerdel 1999). The most common form of pastoralism was integrated into arable farming. Farmers 
kept domestic herds as sources of milk, wool, manure and meat. Herds served as a form of ‘animal capital’, as buffers against failed harvests and political 
crises. There are different levels of dependence on 
livestock, from farmers who kept only a few sheep 
to sedentary pastoralists who combined the herding 
of relatively large flocks with the cultivation of grain 
for domestic consumption. However, most herds 
were small and diversified, average flocks on the 
Triestine Karst being no larger than 15 animals combined of sheep, goats, cattle and horses/mules. This 
number was larger in .i.arija, where herds reached 
80 animals, most of them sheep and goats (Vilfan 
1957). Mobility was restricted to the confines of the 
local community or to the top of the local mountains; 
flocks grazed on communal land, marginal for cultivation. Specialised forms of transhumant pastoralism and nomadic pastoralism were practised almost 
exclusively by the Vlachs, who exploited a no-mansland between the Ottoman and Venetian states, supplied both sides with animal products (Wace and 
Thompson 1914; Markovi. 1971; 1980). 

Probably the most important lesson we can learn 
from the study of traditional pastoralism is that modern practices should not be seen as fossil strategies 
from the distant past, and timeless responses to seasonal climatic extremes, but as dynamic responses to 
extremely complex natural, historical and economic processes. Instead, I take the position of ‘radical 
defamiliarisation’ of Neolithic subsistence practices. 
I believe that Neolithic pastoralism was something 
quite different from anything we can experience now 
(or a few decades ago) in the eastern Adriatic. Structurally equivalent ethnographic analogies for Neolithic economies should therefore be sought elsewhere. I suggest two examples which can shed a light 
on Neolithic pastoralism: the north American Navajo 
Indians, and the Cyclops from Homer’s Odysseus. 

The Odyssey can be read as an ethnographic text describing the pastoral society of ‘the lawless and inhuman’ Cyclops (Odyssey IX). The Cyclops are pastoralists, herders of sheep and goat flocks. They do 
not cultivate land, eat bread or respect gods. Their 
main animal product seemproduct seems to be milk, 
as Polyphemus’ daily schedule includes milking, separating lambs from lactating ewes and dairying. 
This way of life was so remote to the Greeks that the 
Cyclops cannot be classified as human; instead, they 
are portrayed as monsters. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

However, the social institutions described in Odyssey are closer to those of carnivorous pastoralism. 
Cyclop society is fragmented into autarchic households which are economically and politically independent: ‘They have no laws nor assemblies of the 
people, but live in caves on the tops of high mountains; each is lord and master in his family, and they 
take no account of their neighbours’ (Odyssey IX. 
112–115). Weak coalitions are formed only in times 
of conflict; this is obvious from the other Cyclops’ 
reluctant response to Polyphemus’ call for help when 
blinded by Odysseus. One of the most striking features of carnivorous pastoralism is the absence of any 
formal rules of hospitality. This is, of course, a consequence of the fragmentation of economic responsibility, which can be obtained only by maximising 
herds. The lack – or rather, the opposite – of hospitality is shown at its most extreme when Polyphemus 
kills and eats Odysseus’ six companions, and not a 
single goat or sheep from his herd. 

The detailed descriptions of the organisation of space 
and herding techniques are revealing. Cyclops live 
in caves, which also serve as folds for their flocks. 
The description of these caves is surprisingly similar 
to the cave-pens which are still used as shelters for 
flocks in Dalmatia. The cave space is structured by 
folds which serve to separate ewes from lambs and 
rams. Flocks consist of goats and sheep and are taken 
to pasture every morning. In the evening they are 
returned to the cave, where they are milked 

The descriptions of herding practices in The Odyssey 
are precise and seem to document existing practices 
experienced by the author(s) at the time the epic was 
created. However, there is obviously an older layer 
in the epic, describing social institutions and ways of 
life (the absence of agriculture, specialised carnivorous pastoralism, and the social relations typical of 
this mode of production) which was seen as both 
fascinating and strange to the Aegean society of the 
early first millenium BC. The Cyclops in the Odyssey 
can therefore be seen as evidence for existence of a 
specialised, almost ‘pure’ carnivorous pastoralism 
somewhere on the fringes of the Aegean world. 

A fascinating insight into the introduction of pastoralism to hunter-gatherers, and their subsequent 
transformations can be gained from accounts of the 
colonisation of the American Southwest by the Spanish. Before the adoption of pastoralism the Navajo 
were hunter-gatherers and small-scale farmers. As 
a consequence of an increased reliance on agriculture, the Navajo became more sedentary and tied 

to their maize fields. Sheep were brought to the 
Southwest by the Spaniards in the 1600s. Exactly 
when the Navajo began herding sheep rather than 
taking them for food is unknown, but reports indicate that herding had begun by the early eighteen 
century. A process of structural change in Navajo society began soon after 1700, and within only a matter of decades they had become a full blown pastoral society. Domestic herds caused the fragmentation 
of extended families into independent households, 
and increased mobility (Bailey 1980). 

Before the 20th century Navajo households practised 
subsistence pastoralism combined with small-scale 
cultivation of maize fields. Herds and maize were 
used for direct consumption, not for trade, and most 
households owned no more than the minimum numbers needed for direct consumption, which is estimated to be around 250 sheep per household (Kelley 
and Whitley 1989.49). 

Navajo herding practices were extremely simple, as 
rams were not separated from the herd. Combined 
with the extreme reproductive potential of churro 
sheep, this allowed herds to increase faster (Kelley 
and Whitley 1989.90). Because of large herds and 
pressure on pastures, various patterns of mobility 
emerged. Most households practised vertical transhumance, with up to three residences over an annual 
cycle, although other systems of nomadic mobility 
were devised: 

The people moved around most of the time, herding their sheep from place to place. The people travelled mostly on horseback; when moving with the 
sheep, we used horses to carry our belongings. The 
main reason for moving around like that was to 
look for new grazing ground and water for the 
sheep and horses. We never stayed at one place 
very long; we would spend a few days here, and 
then move on to some another location (Frisbie 
and MacAllester 1978.29–31). 

Of course, the Navajo can not serve as direct analogy for the emergence of pastoralsim in the eastern 
Adriatic; however, it can provide insight into the 
consequences of changed social relations of production caused by the adoption of herding. This change 
fragmented extended families into autonomous households; it increased mobility, and modified settlement patterns. 

Both examples can be useful in adding ‘meat to bones’ of, but the ‘bones’–structure and development– 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

of Neolithic pastoralism should be built from the 
ground up, based on the fragmentary archaeological 
data. 

PIECING THE BONES TOGETHER: NEOLITHIC PASTORALISM 

The principal questions that interest me in building 
the ‘skeleton’ of the Neolithic pastoralsim in the eastern Adriatic are those related to the scale and specialisation of hunting and pastoral economies in a long-
term perspective, the seasonality of practices in a 
landscape, patterns of exploitation of animal products and the structure of settlement patterns. 

Faunal Assemblages 

The subject of analysis are 97 faunal assemblages 
from more or less well defined stratigraphic contexts5 from 21 sites in the eastern Adriatic and Caput Adriae (the assemblages used in the analysis 
can be accessed on the Documenta Praehistorica 
homepage: http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/ 
v32mlekuz_sup.html). Data was collected from available published reports. An obvious problem with 
such diverse sources is the comparability of sampling 
strategies (use of sieving etc.), applied analytical methods, and the level of detail available in the reports. 
Only mammal remains were used in the analysis, 
since information about other resources is either incomplete or lacking. All assemblages were screened 
for obvious inconsistencies and some adjustments 
have been made to the bone counts derived from 
the original reports in order to enhance comparability among sites. Where necessary, worked bone and 
shed antlers were not included in the counts used in 
the analysis. In general, the categories used comprise 
the number of bone fragments identified to species 
level. Some modification was required in the case of 
bones such as Sus sp. and Bos sp. Most ‘Neolithic’ assemblages contain representatives of both wild and 
domestic forms of cattle and pig. Many also contain 
bones which, due to high fragmentation and intermediate size, can only be identified to genus level. 
In order to increase the comparability of assemblages, bones identified as Bos sp. and Sus sp. were 
counted as Bos taurus and Sus domesticus in ‘Neolithic’ and ‘transitional’ assemblages (phases 1, 2, 3, 


Fig. 2. Proportion of identified fragments versus 
sample size for sites: Grotta dell'Mitreo/Mitrej (Petrucci 1997.100); Grotta degli Zingari/Ciganska 
jama (Bon 1996.127); Grotta Benussi/Pejca na 
Sedlu (Riedel 1975.128); Acijev spodmol (Turk et 
al. 1992b.34); Podmol pri Kastelcu (Turk et al. 
1992a.71); Grotta Azzura/Pe.ina na Leskovcu (Cremonesi et al. 1984.28); Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca, 
layers 3a, 3,2a, 2 (Boschin and Riedel 2000.Tab. 3). 

4; see below) and as Bos primigenius and Sus scrofa in ‘Mesolithic’ assemblages (phase 0, Fig. 3). For 
the same reason, bones identified as Ovis aries, 
Capra hircus and ‘Ovis or Capra’ were grouped together as ovicaprines. 

The assemblages discussed here are not the simple 
result of châines opératoires6 streaming through 
the sites; they are reworked by a series of taphonomic filters, which transformed them in many ways. 
A comparison of proportions of identified fragments 
and assemblage sample sizes (Fig. 2) can reveal taphonomic traces related to the collection, recording 
and publication of assemblages. The percentage of 
identified fragments is usually well below 50%, except in Grotta dell’Mitreo/Mitrej and Grotta degli 
Zingari/Ciganska jama, both with low sample sizes. 
It is obvious that in these two cases the excavators 
chose to collect and record only identifiable fragments. Assemblages from other sites seem less modified by collection and recording strategies, although there are considerable differences. However, 
there is no correlation between percentages of iden

5 See Toma. Fabec’s (2003) critical analysis of stratigraphic contexts from Caput Adriae. 

6 I believe that the châine opératoire or operational sequence (Leroi-Gourhan 1988) approach to the study of animal remains in 
the landscape can be extremely fruitful. Instead on paying attention on the the static assemblages found in the sites, operational 
sequences focus attention on the dynamic processes of selection, transport, consumption and deposition within the landscape and 
in the social and cultural perspective. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

tified fragments and sample sizes, neither can differences be attributed to the identification skills of 
individual analysts (Grotta Azzura/Pe.ina na Leskovcu (45% of identified fragments) was analyzed by B. 
Wilkens, whereas A. Riedel analyzed Grotta Benussi/Pejca na Sedlu (45%) and Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca (10–25%)). It might be significant that both 
‘Mesolithic’ sites (Grotta Azzura/Pe.ina na Leskovcu 
and Grotta Benussi/Pejca na Sedlu) have the highest 
percentage of identified fragments, whereas the percentage for ‘Neolithic’ sites is much lower. This may 
reflect structural changes in taphonomic processes 
which correlate with the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition and may be connected to changes of activities 
performed on the sites. 

Faunal assemblages were grouped into four chronological phases (Fig. 3) in order to understand changes in animal use. However, loose stratigraphic control over contexts, a general lack of radiocarbon data, and difficulties connected with traditional chronologies based on pottery and lithic typology mean 
that this chronological sequence has only heuristic 
value, and does not pretend to challenge established 
local chronologies. 

Phase 0 consists of assemblages from contexts identified as ‘Mesolithic’ on the base of lithic typology 
and absence of pottery. Phase 0 faunal assemblages 
consist exclusively of wild animals. Phase 1 includes 
‘transitional’ assemblages, with a mix of traditional 
‘Mesolithic’ elements (the presence of a Castelnovien 
tool-kit) and ‘Neolithic’ elements such as domesticates and pottery. Phases from context attributed to 
the ’Vla.ka group’ on the basis of pottery typology 
are grouped in phase 2. Phase 3 assemblages derive 


from loosely defined ‘late Neolithic’ contexts. Assemblages from phase 4 are from ‘late Eneolithic/early 
Bronze Age’ contexts defined by the presence of ‘Ljubljana culture’ pottery. 

Sums of available radiocarbon dates (Fig. 4) display 
all the problems connected with phasing. Phases are 
chronologically fuzzy and overlapping, sometimes 
even significantly (phases 2 and 3). However, the distribution of radiocarbon dates does display a general pattern of succession. 

Specialisation and diversification 

Faunal assemblages display considerable differences 
in terms of their general structure, as well as in the 
relative contribution of major taxa. One way of investigating these differences is through an analysis 
of assemblage diversity. A faunal assemblage dominated by one species would suggest the potential for 
large-scale specialised herding, whereas a mixed assemblage suggests the reverse: diversified and small 
scale herding. 

Specialisation refers to concentration on one or a 
very limited range of species. The economic rationale may be to focus on animals with greater productivity in local environments or on animals with 
specific desired yields. Thus in the context of carnivorous pastoralism it may be desirable to focus 
on small stock which have extremely high reproductive capacities and allow rapid accumulations of 
herds. Specialisation is often a risky strategy, since 
all stock may be affected by localised disease or disaster. However, the relative expense of maintaining 
exclusively one kind of stock may be expected to de

crease with a large number of animals, primarily due to the organisation of labour, which is aimed at the 
rather predictable requirements of 
only one species (Glass 1991.32; 
Halstead 1996a.24). 

Specialisation is a common response 
of subsistence agriculturalists to the 
introduction of a market economy. 
For this reason it has generally been 
regarded as representing a late development, facilitated mainly by the establishment of inter-regional economic systems integrated into a world 
market. However, carnivorous pastoralism is often based on only one spe-

Fig. 3. Chronological divission of assemblages into five phases. cies, for example reindeer in the case



Dimitrij Mleku/ 

of Siberian peoples (Paine 1971; In-
gold 1980), or sheep and goats in 
the case of the Navajo (Bailey 1980) 
or Basseri (Barth 1961). It can even 
be said that it is specialisation, which 
does not enable conversion of stock 
and therefore alternative forms of 
security, which drives households 
towards the accumulation of herds 
and the fragmentation of economic 
responsibility (Ingold 1980). 

Diversification refers to a strategy in 
which multiple kinds of animals are 
kept, and are usually managed for 
different products. There are many advantages to 
be gained from the diversification of stock-holding. 
Since different animals graze on complementary 
plants, their combination permits a more effective 
utilisation of land. They are attacked by different diseases and parasites, so a diversified herd is less vulnerable to loss of due to diseases. Diversification may 
help to even out irregularities in the food supply, for 
in pastoral species oestrum, duration of gestation, 
and lactation periods vary. Moreover, the presence 
of different stock within pastoral economy creates 
the possibility of conversion from one to another 
through exchange (Dahl and Hjort 1976.223–30). 

Measuring diversity 

Diversity, as used here, is a measure of variability in 
the composition of an assemblage. It is comprised of 
two components: richness and evenness. Richness refers to the number of taxa in an assemblage; evenness 
describes the relative proportion of each taxon in an 
assemblage (Grayson 1984; Kintigh 1984; 1989; 
McCartney and Glass 1990). Evenness is measured 
with Shannon-Wiener information statistics (H) divided by the maximum value for observed richness 
(Hmax). Division by Hmax removes the effect of richness and normalises evenness into the 0, 1 interval. 

Measures of richness and evenness have been shown 
to depend greatly on sample size. Both rgression and 
simulation methods have been proposed to control 
for the effect of sample size (Grayson 1984; Kintigh 
1984; 1989; McCartney and Glass 1990). While 
sample size can be important information in itself 
(see below), variability in sample sizes among sites 
presents one of the most obvious difficulties in comparing faunal assemblages. The huge variability in 

sample sizes for analyzed assemblages, which range 
from a few to a few thousand fragments, and relatively poor control over the taphonomic histories of 
published assemblages makes it critical to consider 
sample-size effects. 

The effect of sample size on diversity is evaluated 
using a Monte Carlo simulation (McCartney and 
Glass 1990). This involves constructing a background population of species frequencies from a 
group of assemblages. This hypothetical parent population is then randomly sampled a set number of 
times at various sample sizes. Mean values and confidence intervals are calculated for each sample 
size. Each individual assemblage can be compared 
to this range, and the likelihood that it derives from 
a background population can be evaluated. In this 
study, the background population was constructed 
using a variation of Kintigh’s procedures described 
in (McCartney and Glass 1990).7 

The program generates expected values and 95% 
confidence intervals for richness and evenness. Separate simulations were run for each case. Throughout the analyses faunal assemblages were quantified 
using numbers of identifiable specimens (NISP). 
Other measures (e.g. minimum number of elements, 
MNE) give a more reliable estimate of abundance, 
especially in contexts where fragmentation is variable between species and/or identifiably of bones 
varies significantly between taxa (Miracle 1996). 
However, variable levels of detail in published assemblages allowed only the use of NISP, which was 
the common denominator for all publications. The 
null hypothesis for each simulation is that all assemblages derive from the same background population. 

Fig. 4. Sums of radiocarbon dates for chronological phases. Radio-
carbon dates used can be found on the Documenta Praehistorica ho-
mepage: http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/v32mlekuz_sup. 
html 
7 This procedure was implemented in a software program which can be accessed on the Documenta Praehistorica homepage: http:// 
arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/v32mlekuz_sup.html 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

Faunal assemblage diversity 

In the first simulation, Caput Adriae assemblages 
were compared against all eastern Adriatic assemblages (Fig. 5). This simulation is aimed at detecting 
general trends in the diversity of assemblages and 
examining the effect of sample size on the diversity 
of assemblages. 

The simulation of the effect of the sample size on taxonomic richness in mammal assemblages shows an 
approximate logarithmic relationship between richness and sample size. 

The slope of the line representing the mean expected evenness decreases slightly with the higher sample size. The width of the 95% confidence interval 
decreases with larger sample sizes, showing that 
somewhat greater degrees of random variability are 
to be expected at lower sample sizes than at large 
ones. The scatter of points showing actual values of 
faunal assemblages very roughly reflects these same 
characteristics. They fall in a relatively steeply sloping linear band, which is much broader at small 
sample sizes. The points do not all fall within the limits defined by a 95% confidence interval for each 
simulated point. Therefore the null hypothesis can 
be rejected: the assemblages are not derived from 
a single parent population. The majority of assemblages displays greater evenness than the hypothetical population; they are therefore more diversified 
than expected. But almost all assemblages with sample sizes greater than 300 fragments have lower than 
expected evenness. This may be due to the effect of 
sample size, or may reflect deeper structural properties of animal economies in the eastern Adriatic. It is 
apparent that assemblages from the region tend to 
have larger sample sizes and lower evenness, and 
can be found in the lower left portion of the graphs; 
some assemblages tend to cluster with Caput Adriae 
assemblages. 

The result of the analysis suggests 
that sample size is a major factor 
structuring differences in richness 
and evenness. It also indicates that 
the assemblages cannot be assumed 
to come from a single population, 
or at least not from one resembling 
the hypothetical population. It is apparent that most Caput Adriae assemblages tend to be characterised 
by small sample sizes and high diversity. Larger assemblages tend to 
be more specialised, which is con

sistent with the observation that faunal assemblages dominated by one species would suggest a potential for large-scale, specialised herding. 

The second batch of simulations was run on data 
from selected sites. The main issues pursued here 
are related to temporal changes in assemblage diversity. 

Mala Triglavca and Trhlovca are two contemporaneously occupied caves, with very small assemblages 
(Fig. 7). A relationship between sample size and richness is expected, except for a cluster of assemblages 
from Mala Triglavca which have lower richness than 
expected. The evenness values of assemblages from 
Mala Triglavca display a sharp threshold in phase 2, 
from very specialised to relatively diversified assemblages in phases 3 and 4. Assemblages from Trhlovca are apparently more diversified than expected 
during phases 2, 3 and 4. 

The case analysed is Grotta dell'Mitreo/Mitrej, a cave 
with relatively small assemblages which span from 
the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (Fig. 8). There is a 
distinctive cluster of assemblages with much lower 
richness than expected; most of those assemblages 
are early and less diverse than expected. The earliest assemblages (AB6, A5, B5, phase 2) tend to be 
less diverse, and the latest (A4, phase 3; A3, phase 
4) are more diverse than expected. This pattern is 
less pronounced with larger samples (excavations 
by Centro di Antichitá Altoadriatiche; (De Piero 
Steffee 1978)). However, at Grotta dell’Mitreo/Mitrej 
there is an apparent trend toward increased diversity 
of faunal assemblages during the Neolithic (phases 
2, 3 and 4). 

Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca assemblages are relative 
large and span the ‘transitional’ period (layers 3a 
and 3; phase 1) and the ‘Neolithic’ (layer 2a, phase 2 

Fig. 5. Result of richness and evenness simulation for assemblages 
from eastern Adriatic. 

Dimitrij Mleku/ 

and layer 2, phase 3). Although there 
is an expected relationship between 
sample size and richness, there is a 
dramatic change in the evenness of 
assemblages from less diverse than 
expected assemblages in phase 1 to 
less diverse than expected in phases 
2 and 3 (Fig. 9). This change is also 
marked by the pronounced step in 
sample sizes, where the latter samples are larger by an order of magnitude. 

Selected cases from the Caput Adriae 
demonstrate that there are different 
trajectories of assemblage composition. In Mitreo/Mitrej there is an obvious trend for more diverse assemblages during the Neolithic and Eneolithic (phases 2, 3 and 4). On the 
other hand, there is a dramatic decrease in diversity from the transitional period to the Neolithic in Edera/ 
Stena.ca, where assemblage diversities remain low. Selected examples 
tend to demonstrate different temporal changes in the diversity of faunal assemblages. 
Is there a general trend? In Figure 10, a histogram of 
evenness values was produced for assemblages from 
different phases. All phase 1 assemblages can be 
found in the left-hand portion of the histogram, indicating the absence of highly specialised assemblages. 
These appear in phase 2; however, highly diversified 
assemblages still exist, and tend to be more numerous in phase 3, which is marked also by the disappearance of the? most specialised assemblages. Only highly diversified assemblages can be found in phase 4. 

At this point it is evident that phase 2 is marked by 
the appearance of very specialised animal manage-

Fig. 6. Assemblages from the Eastern Adriatic. Note the large diffe-
rences in assemblage sizes. 
ment systems, which co-existed with more diverse 
ones. In phases 3 and 4 a trend towards diverse assemblage compositions can be observed. I will try to 
explain this trend with an analysis of composition of 
assemblages and of the main animal products. 

Assemblage composition 

Since sheep and goats tend to be the largest component of faunal assemblages, I will analyse their role 
in structuring assemblage diversity. Figure 11 is a histogram of the proportion of sheep and goat in assemblages from different phases. In most of phase 1 
assemblages sheep and goats tend to be a minor 
component, usually comprising less 
then 40% of the assemblage. In 
phase 2 a bimodal distribution can 
be observed. There are some assemblages with relative low proportions 
of sheep and goat, and a large number of assemblages with high proportions of ovicaprines. Almost no 
assemblages with moderate proportions of ovicaprines can be found. 
This changes in phase 3, where we 
can observe a normal distribution of 
proportions of sheep and goat, with 
most of assemblages composed of 

Fig. 7. Result of richness and evenness simulation for assemblages 
from Mala Triglavca and Trhlovca. 

The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

Fig. 8. Result of richness and evenness simulation for assembla-
ges from Grotta dell'Mitreo/Mitrej. 
50% of sheep and goat. A similar, but less pronounced picture can also be seen in phase 4, where there 
are no assemblages with high proportions of ovicaprines. 

A similar picture emerges when we compare proportions of sheep and goat in the assemblages to their 
evenness (Fig. 12). Phase 1 assemblages tend to cluster in the upper right part of the scatter plot, with 
high diversity and low proportions of sheep and 
goat in assemblages. Assemblages with high proportions of sheep and goat and low diversity appear in 
phase 2. Phase 3 assemblages tend to display lower 
proportions of sheep and goat, and higher diversity, which becomes even more evident in phase 4. 

This observation is further supported by the results 
of correspondence analysis8 of faunal assemblage 
compositions (Fig. 12). 

The first dimension, factor 1, which 
accounts for about 48% of variability, 
differentiates most clearly between 
categories of domestic and wild animals. Domestic animals (pig, dog, 
and sheep and goat) are found only 
on the left of the plot, while wild animals (boar, red deer and roe deer) 
are located on the right of the plot. 
Cattle, both wild and domestic, categories are located in the middle of 
the first dimension and overlap. This 
makes sense considering the difficul

ties in distinguishing wild and domestic species. It is clear that the ratio of 
wild to domestic animals is the main 
structuring factor for the assemblages, 
accounting for almost half of the variability. 

The second dimension, factor 2, is 
more difficult to interpret. It is obvious that species which are more common in assemblages (sheep, boar, red 
deer) are placed in the upper section 
of the plot, while rarer species (carnivores, insectivores) are found in the 

lower portion of the graph. The situation becomes 
clearer if all samples with evenness lower than the 
hypothetical population (less diversified samples) 
appear in the upper part of the plot. The second dimension can therefore be interpreted as a diversification of samples. 

Based on the results of correspondence analysis assemblages can be divided into three groups. The first 
group (A) consists of assemblages with high proportions of red deer and/or wild boar. Many assemblages 
from this class are less diversified than the hypothetical assemblage, and came from the context dated to 
phase 1 (Fig. 14). Assemblages from this class can also 
be found in later phases (2, 3 and 4), but these are 
usually more diversified than those from phase 1. 
Class A assemblages can be interpreted as the result 
of operating sequences of more or less specialised 
hunting. 

Fig. 9. Result of richness and evenness simulation for assemblages 
from Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca. 
8 Correspondence analysis is an exploratory technique related to principal components analysis, which finds a multi-dimensional 
representation of the association between the row and column categories (assemblages and species, in this case) of a two-way contingency table. This technique finds scores for the row and column categories on a small number of dimensions, which accounts 
for the greatest proportion of the chi square for an association between the row and column categories, just as the principal components account for maximum variation. For graphic display two or three dimensions are typically used to give a reduced rank 
approximation to the data (Shennan 1988; Baxter 1994). 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

The main components of assemblages from the second group (B) are 
sheep or goat. Most assemblages are 
less diversified than the hypothetical population; highly specialised assemblages can be found in phase 2; 
assemblages from later phases are 
usually more diversified. Assemblages from this group are derived from 
the herding of sheep and goat. 

The final group (C) consists of extremely heterogeneous assemblages, 
with unusually large proportions of 
small mammals, carnivores, pigs and 
cattle. This class is difficult to interpret, and might represent taphonomically modified assemblages, carnivore dens or diversified assemblages 
derived from the herding of diversified herds or heterogeneous operational sequences operating on sites. 

Correspondence analysis thus sheds 
light on the analyses of assemblage 
diveristy. Most phase 1 assemblages 
are derived from hunting activities (class A). Very 
specialised samples which derive from herding sheep 
and goat (B) appear in phase 2, along with heterogeneous, diverse samples (class C). Assemblages 
from all three classes can also be found in phases 3 
and 4, but they tend to become less specialised. Assemblages from phase 3 and, more markedly, from 
phase 4 tend to cluster in the middle of the correspondence plot. This represents the homogenisation 
of animal management strategies toward more diversified herds with sheep, cattle and pig as the main 
species, but also with high proportions of wild animals. 

Sample sizes as measure of intensity of activity? 

The observation that sample size is a major factor 
structuring variability in both richness and diversity of assemblages does not mean that differences 
among the sites in terms of absolute sample sizes 
are meaningless. 

I will assume here that sample size is a meaningful 
measure, although not without problems, of the intensity of bone deposition on the site, and it therefore reflects scales of pastoralism. Sample size can 
therefore offer a hint about the ‘density’ and intensity of actions of châines opératoires flowing thro

ugh the site. However, it can not be overstated that 
the assemblages were excavated under diverse conditions over a number of decades, and analyzed by 
a number of investigators. Simulated excavations of 
a pastoral site in Kenya demonstrated that sample 
size can play a major role in the estimation of size 
and composition of the target population (Ammerman et al. 1978; Voorips et al. 1978). However, bias 
due to the intensity of sampling is an inescapable 
fact of archaeological work. 

If we assume that deposition rates calculated for 
samples are representative of the whole site – which 
is a far-fetched assumption – then we can compare 
the intensity of deposition at different sites. Table 2 
shows calculated deposition rates for selected sites based on assemblage sizes, volumes of sampling units, 
duration of occupation, and the estimated areas of 
the sites. Because most values are only estimates and 
educated guesses, values are compared by their orders of magnitude. 

The assemblage from Tinj-Podlivade (Chapman et 
al. 1996) – an open-air site in Dalmatia – is characterised by a large sample size, which is due to the 
large sampling unit. However, the density of identified bones in a sediment is comparable to the densities calculated for sites from Caput Adriae. In Tinj-

Fig. 10. Histograms of evenness scores for faunal assemblages from 
phases 1 to 4. 

The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

Fig. 11. Histogram of proportion of ovicaprines in assemblages 
from phases 1 to 4. 
flock of approximately 350 sheep 
over one year. Informants reported 
that 37 sheep were killed over six 
months at a winter site. Binford and 
Bertram found 448 identifiable fragments, which gives an estimate of 21 
MNI. Eleven sheep were killed at a 
summer camp, but since it was occupied longer than the winter site, the 
593 fragments found comprise deposition over a course of several years, 
and can not be compared to animals 
butchered for the one summer. 

The calculated deposition rate for the 
winter camp is slightly larger than 
that of the Caput Adriae sites, but is 
mainly in the same order of magnitude. Accounting taphonomic factors 
and small sample sizes for Caput 
Adriae assemblages, this may indicate that few animals were culled on 
the site in one year at sites such as 
Podmol pri Kastelcu and Edera/Stena.ca, a situation comparable to the 
Navajo camps. The deposition rate 
for the open-air, and possibly year-round settlement 
at Tinj-Podlivade is an order of magnitude larger, indicating greater culling and larger scale consump-

Podlivade the number of all deposited fragments 
per year is larger than from other sites by an order 
of magnitude. Given a site area two orders of magnitude larger, bone densities in sediment (NISP/m3) differ only by one 
order of magnitude, which means that 
bone assemblage sizes are largely determined by the size of sampling units 
(test trenches). However, since sampling units are usually very small (usually well below 2% of the estimated 
site area), deposition rates are on the 
same order of magnitude, and therefore the intensity of operations on 
dead animals was more or less equal 
for all sites. Thus it is site size which 
defines the total rate of deposition on 
sites: large open-air settlements from 
Dalmatia yielded larger assemblages, 
whereas small caves yielded far smaller assemblages. However, types of activities and seasonality. Deposition rates for Caput Adriae are comparable 
on the order of magnitude. 

Binford and Bertram (1977) analysed 
two complementary seasonal Navajo 
camps inhabited by one family with a 

Fig. 12. Proportion of sheep vs. evenness for assemblages from 
phases 1 to 4. 

Dimitrij Mleku/ 

tion than that observed at Navajo 
camps. 

These results are consistent with the 
geometric densities of pottery in deposits. Müller’s (1994.Abb. 1) calculations clearly demonstrate a much 
higher density of Neolithic pottery in 
lowland, open-air sites than that observed in caves. 

Meat or milk? 

The identification of herd exploitation 
strategies poses a number of challenges to archaeological research. The 
matter of which animal product was 
primary is not important only in the 
context of economics. The different 
labour requirements connected with 
milch and meat pastoralism play crucial roles in shaping the social relations of production and therefore influence every facet of life. 

That dairying was an innovation of the 3rd millennium BC was first proposed by Andrew Sherrat as 
a component of the secondary products complex 
(Sherratt 1981; 1983; 1997a; 1997b; 2002; 2002). 
Dairying is not a specific technology, nor is it necessarily limited to special types of livestock (Sherratt 
1997a.206). Dairying offers by far the most efficient 
use of uncultivated land, and results in products that 
are suitable for storage (Ingold 1980). However, large 
herds optimised for dairy production are labour-intensive and economically untenable in regions with

out easy accessible pasture (Dahl and Hjort 1976. 
220; Halstead 1996a). Halstead (1996a) argues that 
mixed farming strategies, where a small number of 
a variety of animals are kept for a mixture of products (meat, milk, wool) principally for domestic use 
not only seems more economically plausible in such 
environments, but is also evident in the considerable heterogeneity that exists in Neolithic faunal assemblages. This argument supports the idea that a 
specialised dairy economy could only develop toward the end of Neolithic, after substantial amounts 

Fig. 13. Correspondence analysis of faunal assemblages. 
Site Context NISP 
.N] 
Density 
.NISP\m3] 
Duration 
.years] 
Deposition 
.NISP\m2year] 
Site area 
.m2] 
Deposition 
.NISP\site year] 
References 
Tinj-Podlivade 3212 143 850 0.13 28000 3527 Chapman et al. 1996 
Podmol 
pri Kastelcu 
13 15 15 20 0.38 250 94 Turk et al. 1992 
11 23 30 75 0.26 250 66 
10 15 18 10 0.46 250 114 
Edera 3a 145 363 80 0.45 250 113 
Boschin and Riedel 2000< 
Biagi 2003 
3 98 245 60 0.41 250 102 
2a 1107 277 500 0.55 250 138 
2 524 119 2000 0.07 250 16 
Navajo 
Winter camp 
448 1 448 
Binford and Bertram 
1977 

Tab. 2. Deposition rates of bones for selected eastern Adriatic sites.



The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

Fig. 14. Correspondence analysis of faunal assemblages with rela-
tive evenness values (left) and chronological phases (right). 
of primary forest had been cleared, and fits well 
within the secondary products revolution. 

The traditional method of detection of animal strategies is an analysis of kill-off curves. Payne (1973) 
proposed – on the basis of his ethno-archaeological 
research among Turkish pastoralists – a middle 
range theory, which links flock management strategies to kill-off curves. It is based on the assumption 
than an optimisation of animal products can be obtained by manipulating the sex and age structure of 
the herd. Ideal dairying and meat models differ in 
the age when males are culled. In the ideal dairying 
model, most animals younger than two months are 
culled in order to reduce competition for milk with 
people. With an optimal meat strategy most animals 
are culled after one to three years, as they achieve 
their maximum weight. 

However, use of faunal kill-off patterns to define scale 
and specifics of animal husbandry has been heavily 
criticised. Besides problems inherent in preservation 
and recovery of animal bones, ancient livestock may 
have different productivity than modern, specially 
breed animals (Halstead 1998). High juvenile culling need not indicate a dairy economy but can be result of fodder preserving strategies. Even more, the 
presence of lambs may be prerequisite of early dairying in order to stimulate lactation of the sheep. 

Kill-off curves from the four sites (Grotta dell’Edera/ 
Stena.ca; (Boschin and Riedel 2000), Grotta degli 
Zingari/Ciganska jama; (Bon 1996), Grotta del Mitreo/ 
Mitrej; (Petrucci 1997) and Grotta dei Ciclami/Orehova pejca; (Riedel 1968)) were analyzed (Fig. 15). 

Kill-off curves from the Edera (phases 1, 2 and 3), 
Zingari (phase 2), Ciclami (phase 2) and Mitreo 

(phase 3) are similar to the dairying 
curve, as they document a relatively 
high cull of young lambs. However, 
the cull of juvenile and sub-adult animals is closer to the ideal meat model (Edera and Mitreo, sites with relatively large samples). The cull of adult 
animals is low. 

Combined curves (Fig. 16) display 
trends towards higher culls of adult 
and lower culls of young animals. 
However, culls of juvenile animals 
are too high for the ideal meat model. 

Curves from the latest assemblages (Mitreo and Ciclami, phase 4) are structurally different. Compared 
to the earlier curves this demonstrates lower culls of 
young animals and the increased culling of adults. 
The curves lie between the ideal milk and meat curves. 

No curve resembles either the ideal meat or milk 
model. Examples of optimised meat economies can 
be found – among others – in early Neolithic Greek 
(Halstead 1996a) and Dalmatian sites. However, 
these are relatively large, occupied all year round, 
and provide evidence of domestic and agricultural 
activities. They are in sharp contrast to the small, 
seasonally used caves, from which all the assemblages analysed derive. 

How can we interpret these puzzling curves? A seasonal bias needs to be accounted for. Since most sites were occupied during lambing, a high number of 
young lambs may reflect high mortality and/or culling. A high cull of juveniles may reflect fodder optimisation strategies (Halstead 1998) (e.g. autumn killing, (Higgs and White 1963)). Thus early curves demonstrate a relatively simple, unoptimised economy 
aimed at the domestic consumption of meat. 

Curves from the latest assemblages may demonstrate 
trends towards the optimisation of meat production 
and/or the intensification of dairying. These curves 
may be the result of mixed farming strategies, where 
a small number of a variety of animals is kept for a 
mixture of products (meat and milk) principally for 
domestic use. This pattern not only seems more economically plausible, but is also evident in a trend toward heterogeneity that exists in the Late Neolithic, 
Eneolithic and Broze Age faunal assemblages. However, there is no evidence of an intensive dairy eco


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

nomy based on sheep and goat. However, in diversified herds, small stock 
is exploited principally for meat, while 
cattle are kept as a source of milk 
(Dahl and Hjort 1976.223–56). It is 
therefore possible that the trend of 
increased diversity of assemblages reflects a diversification in animal products, with cattle or goats as the main 
milk animals. 

Goats or sheep? 

Goats and sheep are usually kept together as ‘small stock’ and regarded 
as one unit. Difficulties in distinguishing sheep from goat bones in faunal assemblages (Boessneck 1969) 
grouped under ‘ovicaprines’. However, sheep and goat are complementary animals in terms of food preferences and grazing behaviour (Dahl 
and Hjort 1976.249–56; Bartosiewicz 1999). Most sources agree that 
under traditional pastoral conditions 
goats are more effective milk producers than sheep (Dahl and Hjort 
1976.210). Therefore they allow for a fine grained 
diversification of herds. Combining sheep and goats 
has many practical advantages. Goats act as flock leaders and lead sheep to graze over wider areas (Dahl 
and Hjort 1976.250) and complementary dietary 
preferences allow a more effective use of land. 

Goats are obviously present since the appearance of 
small stock in Caput Adriae (Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca, layers 3a in 3; phase 1). However, their ratio 
is usually low, around 20% which is usually cited as 
the optimal proportion (Bartosiewitz 1999). 

The percentage of goats is high in specialised assemblages, where caprines are the dominant component 
(60%.) However, large percentages of goats can be attributed to collection strategies, which favoured large, easily identifiable fragments (horn cores). In Edera/Stena.ca, where sample size is relatively high (24 
and 42 fragments determined to the level of species), 
the percentage of goat never exceeds 30 (Fig. 18). 

Rowley-Conwy determined that Arene Candide goats 
were present from the Middle Neolithic onwards 

(Rowley-Conwy 2000), when they were used for milking. Rowley-Conwy attributes their late appaerance 
to their supposed unsuitability for sea transport.9 

However, goats were present in the Caput Adriae 
region from the first introduction of the caprinae. 

Fig. 16. Combined kill-off curves. 
Fig. 15. Kill-off curves of assemblages from sites Grotta dell’Edera/ 
Stena.ca, Grotta degli Zingari/Ciganska jama, Grotta del Mitreo/ 
Mitrej and Grotta dei Ciclami/ Orehova pejca. 
9 However, weak phylogeographic structure (i.e. high gene flow) in domestic goats (Luikart et al. 2001) indicates extensive transportation of goats. It also suggests that goats might have played an important role in historical human colonisations, migrations 
and commerce. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

Fig. 17. Kill-off curve from Dalmatian open-air site 
Tinj-Podlivade, indicating exploatation of herds for 
meat. 
They could have been used for small scale dairying, 
invisible in the crude resolution of kill-off curves. 
However, I believe that goats can not be connected 
to the process of diversification and appearance of 
dairying on a larger scale in the Late Neolithic. 

Seasonality and mobility 

A basic tactic for enhancing the productivity of herds 
is mobility, seasonal, and inter-annual, to exploit the 
best available pasture or to prevent local overgrazing. An examination of seasonality of site use is an 
essential step if any light is to be cast on the organisation of an economic system. Patterns of the presence or absence of animals at sites through the seasonal cycle are represented in the distribution of 
young animals, whose ages can be accurately determined from tooth eruption patterns. The eruption of 
sheep teeth is relatively well understood and various methods can be 
applied to study age and seasonality. 
In this analysis I compiled analyses 
of the wear stages of mandibles from 
the original publication and standardised them against Payne’s scheme 
(1973). The samples are generally 
very small, and only nine assemblages from two sites (Grotta dell Mitreo/ 
Mitrej (Petrucci 1997) and Grotta 
dell’Edera/Stena.ca (Boschin and 
Riedel 2000)) yielded enough data, 
which is presented in Figure 19). 

However, due to the very small samples and blurred 
age distributions, only some tentative conclusions 
can be drawn. 

It appears that the majority of animals in Grotta dell 
Mitreo/Mitrej in phase 2 were culled between 2–6 
months. Since no foetal remains are present, animals were probably not present on the site.10 In 
phase 3 the pattern changes; the peak is still at 2–6 
months, but younger animals and foetuses are present too, which suggests that sheep lambed on the 
site. No animals older than 6 months are present on 
the site. 

The seasonality pattern in the Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca seems to be different. All age ranges except 0– 
2 months are present in phase 1; however, this sample is unrepresentative due to the small size. Most 
animals were culled at 0–2 months in phase 2; animals from the age range of 2–6 months are absent. 
All age ranges are equally represented in phase 3; 
however, sample size is again very low. 

Comparing the seasonality pattern of the sites, it is 
complementary. Most animals from Mitreo were culled at 2–6 months in phase 2, while this age range 
is absent from Edera. 

Other assemblages offer some hints on seasonality 
patterns. The majority of animals from Grotta degli 
Zingari/Ciganska jama are older than six months, 
aged on the basis that most mandibles that had milk 
premolars were also characterised by molars in the 
process of eruption. The presence of neonatal animals demonstrates lambing on the site. A similar situation can be observed in Grotta Gigante/Pe.ina v 
Gmajni (Riedel 1969), where most mandibles have 

Fig. 18. Proportion of goats in the assemblages by relative even-
ness scores (left) and chronological phases (right). 
10 Taphonomic factors may, of course, be responsible for the lack of foetal bones, but since foetal bones were recovered from 
other contexts, this may suggest that ewes were actually absent from the cave in the lambing season. 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

both milk premolars and molars in the process of 
eruptions, pointing at cull of animals older than six 
months. 

In the Pupi.ina most of the animals whose age 
could be estimated were foetuses or younger than 
2 months, suggesting occupation of the cave in the 
lambing season. 

When in the seasonal cycle were the caves in use? 
The birth season of sheep and goats is crucial to the 
discussion. Wild sheep’s oestrus is stimulated by decreasing day length, which triggers an increase in 
hormonal activity. Seasonality is more pronounced 
in more northerly regions. Wild sheep thus breed 
in late autumn/early winter and lamb in late spring/ 
early summer. Oestrus can be manipulated by the 
practices of herders. Oestrus can be stimulated by 
the controlled introduction of rams into a flock. On 
the other hand, where ewes are not separated from 
rams, they become polyoestrous. This is the traditional Navajo shepherding strategy, which is aimed at 
maximising births (Kelley 1994). 

It is thus not clear precisely when sheep and goat 
might be expected to give birth. At least two scenarios are possible. 

Scenario 1. If Neolithic sheep gave 
birth in late spring/early summer, 
then 2–6 month animals were culled 
somewhere within the period between August and December, 6–9 
month old animals in period the between December and March. Then 
animals from the phase 2 occupation 
of Grotta dell’Mitreo were culled in 
the period from August to March, 
with the peak between August and 
December; while in phase 3, animals 
were present on the site from June 
to December, with culling peak in 
autumn. Animals from phase 1 contexts from Edera were absent during the summer from the site, but in 
phase 2, most animals were culled in 
summer and absent during the autumn and early winter. 

In scenario 2 Neolithic sheep are 
polyoestrous, therefore give births 
over whole year. The seasonality pattern in this scenario is extremely difficult to interpret, but different and 

complementary patterns observed in different hint 
at the seasonal use of sites. 

The complementary seasonal pattern observed in 
Mitreo and Edera may suggest that cave sites were 
not merely outstations of a larger pastoral system, 
with central sites elsewhere, but they comprised a 
full yearly cycle of seasonal mobility. However, due 
to the extremely small sample sizes, all conclusions 
here are tentative and further testing of the arguments is necessary. 

Representation of body parts 

The relative frequency of different body parts can 
provide valuable information about operational sequences on dead animals in the landscape. In this 
way can we identify processing and consumption 
sites, and the role of sites in the settlement pattern, 
and identify the spatial dimension of operational 
sequences on animals flowing through the landscape. 
The observed distribution of anatomical parts in archaeological contexts is a result of a potentially complex set of cultural and natural processes. 

For the purpose of analysis skeletal elements were 
grouped into a series of carcass units. NISP counts 

Fig. 19. Seasonality data for Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca and Grotta 
dell Mitreo/Mitrej. 

The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

were corrected by dividing NISP for each carcass 
unit by the number of elements present in the carcass unit in a complete skeleton. Note that not all 
elements were included for each carcass unit. 

The principal measure used in the analysis is %MAU, 
which was calculated by standardising corrected 
NISP for carcass units to 100 % by dividing values 
by the highest corrected NISP; The MGUI (Binford 
1978) and volume density (Lyman 1994.Table 7.6) 
were are used as predictive models of carcass unit 
selection. Mean MGUI and density were calculated 
by averaging values for the different elements included in each carcass unit. Relationships between these 
variables and carcass unit frequencies were assessed 
using scatter plots and non-parametric statistical 
measures of correlation (Spearman’s r). 

Sample sizes are generally low, so some caution in 
interpreting results, as with the seasonality pattern 
is advised. 

In Edera/Stena.ca (Fig. 20) there is a strong positive correlation between food utility, as measured 
by the mean MGUI, and carcass unit frequency for 
phases 2 and 3, but a weak and statistically insignificant correlation for phase 1 assemblages. An obvious feature of body part distribution is the extremely large proportion of head bones. This can probably be attributed to the taphonomic processes 
(Stiner 1991; Stiner 1994). If one removes head 
bones from the analysis, then there is an even stronger correlation for phase 2 and 3, but a weaker and 
less significant correlation for phase 1 assemblages. 
Turning to red deer, we find an inverse pattern (Fig. 
21). There is a negative correlation between food 
utility and carcass unit frequency over all four phases (grouped together due to the small sample sizes), 
which becomes stronger as head bones are removed 
from analysis. 

In Grotta dell’Mitreo/Mitrej a weak positive correlation between food utility and carcass unit frequency 
can be observed, similar to the phase 1 assemblages 
from Edera/Stena.ca. However, this may be due in 
both cases to very small sample sizes. The proportion 
of head bones to other carcass units is much lower 
than at Edera, suggesting different taphonomic agents 
operating on the site from those at Edera (Fig. 22). 

The sample sizes are admittedly small, and the results are preliminary, but the overall impression is 
that sheep and goats were consumed on the site, 
suggested by the presence of meatier parts, but red 
deer carcasses were only butchered in the Edera/Stena.ca and consumed elsewhere. If this is true, then 
we have evidence for two seasonally exclusive uses 
of the site: as a herding camp, and as a hunting 
camp. Meagre seasonal indicators for red deer11 suggest that red deer were hunted in winter during 
phase 1, while in phase 2 the hunting season shifted 
to summer-autumn. 

The large ratio of sheep and goat bones to red deer 
suggests significantly greater consumption, and may 
indicate that this was a residential camp where flocks 
were accompanied by entire household(s) and not 
just shepherds. 

Another question is whether these results reflect the 
selective use of carcass units or are merely the result 
of taphonomic processes (Grayson 1981; 1984). Carcass unit frequency is not significantly correlated 
with volume density; however, it is much weaker 
and even negative when head bones are excluded 
(Fig. 23). Thus a large proportion of head bones in 
Edera are possibly a result of the density mediated 
destruction of bones. However, a significant positive 
correlation between carcass unit frequencies and 
food utility, and a negative correlation between carcass units and volume density with head bones excluded suggests that assemblages can still yield some 
information on the selective use of carcass units. 

Sites 

The work of J. E. Brochier (1983; 1990; 1991; 1996) 
in the French Midi demonstrates that sedimentological and soil micromorphological analyses of the sediments of caves can indicate whether caves were 
used as animal shelters as they are made up of and 
contain abundant calcareous spherullites and pytholiths. Giovanni Boschian (2000; Boschian and Montagnari Kokelj 2000; Boschian and Miracle 2003) 
has established that the soil morphology evidence 
for these deposits was formed by the accumulation 
of ash derived from the burning of the shelter layers 
containing herbivore droppings.12 Two different facies were determined for stable deposits. 

11 Only animals older than six months are present in contexts 3a and 3, while in context 2a and 2 foetuses, newborns and animals younger than 6 months are present (Boschin and Riedel 2000.Table 8). However, sample size is again very low. 

12 Boschian (2000) has identified stable deposits in caves from the Triestine Karst, Azura, Lonza, Caterina, and Pupi.ina. On the 
basis of descriptions such deposits also be infered for other caves, such as Podmol pri Kastelcu, Mala Triglavca, Acijev spodmol, Vagana.ka pe.ina, Vela spila, Hateljska pe.. 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

Facies 3 deposits (‘layer-cake’) are 
made up of finely alternating black 
and white lenses. They appear in the 
form of ‘heaps’ and are mainly found 
near the cave walls, and may be result of cleaning the ash from the 
centre of the cave and of heaping in 
marginal areas (Boschian 2000.364; 
Boschian and Miracle 2003). The 
thin, finely layered charcoal lenses 
suggest that this process was repeated cyclically, probably over a long 
period (Fig. 24). 

The basic components of facies 4 are 
the same as those found in facies 3 
and are the result of similar sedimentary processes. These deposits 
are highly homogenous, as coprolithic aggregates are very sparse throughout the deposits. The disaggregation of coprolites was probably 
due to reworking and trampling, as suggested by the 
compactness of the facies 4 sediment. Large patches 
of phosphates are common. This facies is usually 
found in the centre of the caves. 

The varying distribution of facies suggests that the 
cave space was somehow structured, with a central 
area used for animal accomodation, which was regularly cleared, and marginal areas at the cave walls 
used as a dump for burned dung. Sheep can produce 
large quantities of dung. Modern breeds can produce 
around 500 kg of dung per year (up to 900 kg/year 
animal) and around 1.5 kg per day; 
goats are even more productive. Cattle can produce up to 10 000 kg of 
dung per year (Slicher van Bath 
1963). And even if animals do not 
stay in the cave for the whole year 
and only part of the day (night, midday) a small herd can produce a 
large qauntity of dung13. Thick layers of dung cause cave floors to be 
slippery, wet and generally uncomfortable for animals. This can cause 
weight loss and susceptibility to diseases and parasites. Animal droppings are a medium for parasites 
such as strongyloid, which can be often found in humid and unattended 
stables (Kompan et al. 1996; Poga.

nik et al. 1998). However, sheep dung is around 
80% water and has to be dried in order to make it 
flammable. 

Based on his work in the Midi Pyrenees Brochier 
has proposed a model for a complex agro-pastoral 
system in which transhumant shepherds seasonally moved from their lowland open-air settlement 
(habitats bergeries) to the upland caves (grottes bergeries). This produced a settlement pattern with two 
exclusive type of sites, seasonally occupied caves, 
where animals were kept during the summer and 
permanent open air villages. This pattern is similar 
to the Alpwirtschaft and ethnographically documen-

Fig. 20. Representation of carcass units of sheep in assemblages 
from Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca. 
Fig. 21. Representation of carcass units of red deer in assemblages 
from Grotta dell’Edera/Stena.ca. 
13 Thus a herd of 100 animals which spends 8 hours per day in a cave can accumulate 4000 kg of fresh and around 2800 kg of 
dry dung in one year. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

Fig. 22. Representation of carcass units of sheep in assemblages 
from Grotta dell'Mitreo/Mitrej. 
ted systems of normal transhumance practiced in the 
Dinarides, or with seasonal upland pastoral settlements (stine, katuni) and lowland villages (Marko-
vi. 1980). This model was somehow uncritically accepted also for the eastern Adriatic and the Triestine 
Karst. However, there are also other ethnographically documented uses of caves in the pastoral systems of eastern Adriatic coast and Dinarides. Caves 
were often used as winter stables, especially on Dalmatian islands (Mleku..field notes, Fig. 25) and at 
Bukovica (Vin..ak 1989). Use of similar structures 
is attested also for Greece, where similar structure in 
Argolid was documented by Claudia Chang (Chang 
and Murray 1981). 

Perhaps an even better analogy for caves are staje, 
shelters where animals are kept during the midday 
heat and during bad weather (Vilfan 1957). Sometimes staje were used for overnight shelter, especially if pastures were too far from villages. Staje are 
usually natural shelters, caves, rock shelters, doline, 
used mainly for animals, although shepherds may 
use them too. Staje are reused, as can be observed 
in the dry walls used to structure the space. Most 
of the excavated caves in the Triestine karst were 
used as staje in historical times, which can be attested by the reports of informants and the dry wall 
structures visible in excavation reports.14 However, 
it is important to note that staje were used in a system of non-transhumant pastoralism, documented 
for the Adriatic Islands and Triestine Karst, where 
animals were pastured on common land around the 
village (Vilfan 1957; Vukeli. 1973). 

This may be compared to the technique called ‘hogan grazing’ practiced by the Navajo, who bedded their 
flocks close to their homes – hogans 
or rock shelters. Flocks were allowed 
to graze nearby during the day, but 
in the evenings they were returned 
to the corrals (Bailey 1980.77; Blomberg 1983; Kelley and Whitley 1989. 
88–99). 

The intensive presence of grazing 
animals around the caves can be attested also by the presence of ‘open 
vegetation’ pollen and the low percentage of grasses in palinological 
record (Podmol pri Kastelcu (Turk 
et al. 1992)), which indicates that grasses were grazed before flowering (Groenman-van Waateringe 

1993). 

The most direct evidence for the presence of flocks 
of domestic animals in the archaeological record are 

Fig. 23. Correletion between representation of car-
cass unit representation and food utility vs. corre-
lation between carcass unit representation and 
mineral density. 
14 Use of caves for staje can be attested at Grotta Azzura/Pe.ina na Leskovcu (Cremonesi et al. 1984), Mala Triglavca (Leben 1988), 
Podmol Pri Kastelcu (Turk et al. 1992), Grotta degli Zingari/Ciganska Jama (Marzolini 1971), Pejca v La.cu (Moser 1899) and 
Grotta dell’Orso/Pe.ina pod Muzarji (Guacci 1959). 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 


Fig. 24. Facies 3 deposit at the Mala Triglavca. 

shelter deposits. Although sites were probably used 
only seasonally, main anthropogenic component attests to the periodically intensive presence of animals. And this is in contrast to the relatively low 
rates of bone deposition, indicating a very low culling of animals. 

Integrating the results into the wider picture 

The first sheep and goat bones appear in the late 
Mesolithic contexts of phase 1 (Fig. 26). The ratio of 
sheep and goat in the assemblages are usually well 
below 50%, and most assemblages are diversified, 
with red deer and boar being the main components. 
These assemblages can be understood as the seasonal hunting camps of indigenous hunter-gatherer 
communities. Sheep and goat bones document the 
formation of domestic herds, still, 
however, incorporated into traditional modes of land use. 

The main change can be observed at 
the advent of phase 2 (Fig. 27). The 
first Neolithic contexts of the ‘Vla.ka 
group’ yielded some very specialised 
assemblages with ratios of sheep and 
goat well above 50%, sometimes 
even close to 100%. However, there 
are still some diversified assemblages similar to those from phase 1 
and marked by high proportions of 
red deer or boar. Seasonality analyses suggest changes in the seasonal 
use of sites from previous phases. 
The observed complementary seasonal patterns suggest that Triestine 
Karst caves enclosed the full cycle of 
anual mobility. The concentration of 

Fig. 25. Cave-stable near Matajna on the Island Pag. 

animals is suggested by the appearance of stable deposits, which also documents a shift in cave use from 
gatherings of people to animal shelters. However, 
caves were also sites of consumption, as the pattern 
of selective uses of sheep and goat carcass units suggests. The main animal product was meat. Kill-off patterns suggest unoptimised culling for immediate consumption. Wild animals were butchered on-site, but 
consumed elsewhere. This may indicate the complementary use of the cave during the annual cycle, whereby caves were used for part of the year as animal 
shelters or as herding camps, and as hunting camps 
at other times. Therefore, phase 2 documents the 
emergence of carnivorous pastoralism in the area. 

In the late Neolithic (phase 3, Fig. 27) and Eneolithic 
and Early Bronze Age (phase 4, Figure 28) a trend 

Fig. 26. Caput Adriae assemblages at the Mesolithic/Neolithic tran-
sition (phase 1). 

The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

Fig. 27. 'Vla.ka group' assemblages (phase 2). 
reproduce within the household 
which obtained them. Small proportions of sheep and goat in assemblages suggest that animals were not 
herded, but used only for display 
and feasts. With the establishment 
of farming villages in the Istrian lowlands and northern Dalmatia a channel for the massive acquisition of 
sheep and goats was opened. When 
households could obtain them (through exchange or raiding), they become more numerous, and this led 
to the establishment of domestic 
herds. But through their reproduction they reproduce the principle of 
divided access to resources. They become the medium for the reproduction of new social relations of production. 

New relations between people and between people 
with respect to animals can be observed are marked 
by the establishment of domestic herds, which serve 
as sources of food. In the archaeological record this 
change can be read from stable deposits, which evidence the concentration of domestic animals on 
sites, and high proportions of sheep and goat in assemblages, which points to their importance for subsistence. Both indicators of new relationships between people and animals appear together, at the 
end of ‘transitional phase’ (phase 1), around 7500 
cal BP. Thus can phase 1 be understood as a period 

towards the homogenisation and diversification of 
assemblages can be observed. Assemblages are now 
much the same as each other and more diversified. 
This may be the consequence of the increased use 
of some animals (cattle) for milk and assigning a 
more specialised role to each species in the herd, as 
kill-off patterns for sheep indicate. Thus a mixed 
stock economy emerges, with more flexible security 
strategies than those of carnivorous pastoralism. 

CONCLUSION 

The first evidence of sheep and goats 
on the eastern Adriatic coast appear 
in late Mesolithic contexts. Although 
they are domesticates, they do not 
document the beginning of pastoralism, but rather an internal political 
dynamic. They were obtained through exchange networks and used as 
prestige foodstuffs in a competitive 
feast operating in and between hunter-gatherer communities in the eastern Adriatic (Miracle 2001). But they 
opened a path for different transformations. Those animals – although 
shared – are beyond the obligations 
of sharing that apply in the case of 
hunted animals. 

When sheep and goats were rare, 
they were eaten before they could 

Fig. 28. Late Neolithic/Eneolithic assemblages (phase 3). 

Dimitrij Mleku/ 

of structural transformation of hunter-gatherers into full-blown pastoralists. It seems that this process was 
relatively fast,15 which is probably 
connected to the high reproductive 
capacity of small stock. A similarly 
rapid transformation can be observed in the case of the Navajo in the 
18th century. 

Although sporadic finds of domestic 
sheep can be found in late Mesolithic contexts, specialised strategies 
of small stock management appear 
in the early Neolithic. This change is 
also reflected in a radically different 
use of sites from the early Neolithic 
onwards. Mesolithic sites were primary gatherings of people; with the 
appearance of small stock they became animal shelters. Generally, the 
small sample sizes of animal bones demonstrate low 
rates of bone deposition, which is consistent with 
the cull and consumption of only one household. 
Sites were seasonally occupied. The pattern of seasonal use of sites can be interpreted by two exclusive scenarios. However, both support the idea that 
sites from the study area are part of a complete seasonal cycle. In the Early and Middle Neolithic, domestic animals were exploited mainly for meat. Animal 
management strategies were not optimized and were 
geared towards the satisfaction of immediate needs. 
Milk probably became an important animal product 
in the late Neolithic/Eneolithic. This change in the 
pattern of animal product exploitation is also reflected in a trend of diversification of animal management strategies. The remains of wild animals display 
a pattern where only low-utility parts can be found 
at sites, whereas high utility animal parts were consumed elsewhere. The bones of domestic animals 
display the reverse pattern. This may demonstrate 
the complementary use of sites through the seasonal cycle. 

I believe that Caput Adriae and the Dinarides were 
settled by small, autarchic and mobile groups. Although pure pastoralism is rare in the ethnographic 
record (Salzman 2004), I believe that the Neolithic 
pastoralists of the eastern Adriatic were as pure carnivorous pastoralists as can be. The social relations 
of carnivorous pastoralism kept political life to a 
minimum; households did not enter complex social 

structures such as exchange networks. This may explain the pattern observed by Budja (2001). He noted a general lack of painted pottery, anthropomorphic figurines, stamp seals, tokens and stylised amulets on the eastern Adriatic coast and explained this 
curious absence by social barriers which prevented 
engaging and maintaining the circulation of goods 
and people over long distances (Budja 2001.41). The 
reason for the exclusion of eastern Adriatic from 
the regional networks exchange is therefore to be 
sought in the fragmentation and isolation of carnivorous pastoralist households, who lead a ‘very careful life’ of isolated accumulation of their herds. East 
Adriatic carnivorous pastoralist can be best portrayed as Cyclops. 

The transformation of hunter-gatherer groups into 
pastoralists was a deep structural transformation, 
which involved much more than the incorporation 
of novel resources into existing societies. It was a 
revolutionary transformation which created a different set of social relations between animals and 
people and between people with respect to animals, 
new organisations of production, different ways of 
life and different perceptions of landscape. And although the archaeological record of pastoralism from 
the eastern Adriatic coast displays many differences 
from hunting and gathering, it is not the result of 
population change, but a structural change in social 
relations which changed the hunting and gathering 
mode of production into carnivorous pastoralism. 

Fig. 29. Eneolithic/Bronze Age assemblages (phase 4). 
15 Most phase 1 radiocarbon dates tend to cluster around 7500 cal BP. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

REFERENCES


AMMERMAN A. J., GIFFORD L. D. P. and VOORPS A. 
1978. Towards an evaluation of sampling strategies: 
simulated excavations of Kenyan pastoralist site. In 

I. Hodder (ed.), Simulation Studies in Archeology. 
Cambridge Univeristy Press, Cambridge. 
BAILEY L. R. 1980. If You Take My Sheep... The Evolution and Confilcts of Navajo Pastoralism, 1630–
1868. Westernlore, Pasadena (Ca). 

BARA. L., PERI.I. M., KLARI., MARTINOVI. I., ROOTSI S., JANI.IJEVI. B., KIVISILD T., PARIK J., RUDAN I., VILLEMS R. and RUDAN P. 2003. Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island 
isolates. European Journal of Human Genetics 11 
(7): 535–42. 

BARFIELD L. 1971. The first Neolithic cultures of 
north east Italy III. In H. Schwabedissen (ed.), Die 
Anfange des Neolithikums von Orient bis Nordeuropa. Teil VII: Westliches Mittelmeer gebiet und Britische Inseln. Böhlau Verlag, Köln–Wien: 182–216. 

BARTH F. 1961. Nomads of South Persia. Little, 
Brown and Co, Boston. 

BARTOSIEWITZ L. 1999. Sheep vs. goat meat consumption. In L. Bartosiewitz and J. H. Greenfield 
(eds.), Transhumant pastoralism in southern Europe. Archaeolingua. Budapest: 47–60. 

BATOVI. .. 1973. Prapovjesni ostaci na zadarskom 
oto.ju. Diadora 6: 5–166. 

1979. Jadranska cona. Praistorija jugoslovenskih 
zemalja II. 473–635. 

1966. Stariji neolit u Dalmaciji. Dissertationes 

II. Arheolo.ki muzej Zadar, Zadar. 
BAXTER M. J. 1994. Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, 
Edinburgh. 

BENAC A. 1958. Zelena pe.ina. Glasnik Zemaljskog 
muzeja Bosne in Hercegovine, Arheologija XIII: 
61–92. 

1975. Mladi praistorijski periodi u Crvenoj stijeni. 
In .. Basler (ed.), Crvena stijena: Zbornik radova. Zajednica kulturnih ustanova, Nik.i.: 121–46. 

BENDER B. 1978. Gatherer-hunter to farmer: a social 
perspctive. World Archaeology 10(2): 204–22. 

1981. Gatherer-hunter intensification. In A. Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.), Economic Archaeology. 
BAR International Series 69: 149–57. 

BIAGI P. 2003. New data on the Early Neolithic of 
the Upper Adriatic. In L. Nikolova (ed.), Early Symbolic Systems for Communication in Southeast Europe. BAR International Series 1139: 337–48. 

BIAGI P. and STARNINI E. 1999. Some aspects of the 
neolithization of the Adriatic region. Atti della Societá per la Praistoria e Protoistoria della Regione 
Friuli-Venezia Giulia XI: 7–17. 

BINFORD L. R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. 
Academic Press, New York. 

BINFORD L. R. and BERTRAM J. B. 1977. Bone frequencies – and attritional processes. In L. R. Binford 
(ed.), For Theory Building in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York: 77–153. 

BLOMBERG B. 1983. Mobility and sedentism: the 
Navajo of Black Mesa, Arizona. Center fot Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University 
at Carbondale, Carbondale. 

BOESSNECK J. 1969. Osteological differences between sheep (Ovis aries Linné) and goat (Capra hircus Linné). In D. R. Brothwell and E. S. Higgs (eds.), 
Science in archaeology. Thames and Hudson, London: 331–58. 

BON M. 1996. La fauna neolitica della Grotta degli 
Zingari nel Carso Triestino. Atti della Societá per la 
Praistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 9: 127–35. 

BOSCHIAN G. and MIRACLE P. 2003. Shepherds and 
caves in the Karst of Istria (Croatia). In G. Boschian, 

R. Langhor, S. Limbrey and R. I. Macphail (eds.), Second International Conference on Soils and Archaeology – extended abstracts. Dipartimento di Scienze Archeologiche, Universita di Pisa, Pisa: 17–21. 
BOSCHIAN G. and MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. 2000. 
Prehistoric Shepherds and Caves in the Trieste Karst 
(Northeastern Italy). Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 150(4): 331–71. 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

BOSCHIAN G. 2000. New data on the pastoral use of 
caves in Italy. Atti della Societá per la Praistoria 
e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 
13(Quaderno 8): 63–72. 

BOSCHIN F. and RIEDEL A. 2000. The late Mesolithic 
and Neolithic fauna of the Edera cave (Aurisina, Trieste Karst): a preliminary report. Societá Preistoria 
Protoistoria Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Trieste, Quaderno 8 (82): 73–90. 

BRAJKOVI. D. 2000. .andalja. Histria archaeologica 29: 5–26. 

BROCHIER J. E. 1983. Bergeries et feux de bois néolithiques dans le Midi de la France. Quartär 33/34: 
181–94. 

1990. Des techniques géo-archélogiques au service de l'étude des paysages et de leur exploitation. In J. L. Fiches and S. E. van der Leeuw (eds.), 

Archéologie et espaces. Actes X rencontres internationales d’archéologie ed d’historie d’Antibes. 

Université Nice, Antibes: 453–72. 

1991. Géoarchéologie du monde agropastoral. In 

J. Guilaine (ed.), Pour une archéologie agraire. 
A. Colin, Paris: 303–22. 
1996. Feuilles u fumiers? Observations sur rôle 
des poussieers sphérolitiques dans l’interprétation 
des dépôts archéologiques holoceenes. Anthropozoologica 24: 19–30. 

BUDJA M. 2001. The transition to farming in Southeast Europe: perspectives from pottery. In M. Budja 
(ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 28: 27–47. 

CHANG C. and MURRAY P. 1981. An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Contemporary Herder’s Site. Journal of Field Archaeology 8: 373–81. 

CHAPMAN J. and MÜLLER J. 1990. Early farmers of 
the Mediterranean basin: the Dalmatian evidence. 
Antiquity 64: 127–34. 

CHAPMAN J., SHIEL R. and BATOVI. .. 1996. The 
changing face of Dalmatia. Leicester University 
Pres. Leicester. 

CHAPMAN J. 1990. Demographic trends in Neothermal South-East Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: papers presented at the third international symposium Edinburgh 1985. John Donald, Edinburgh: 500–15. 

1994. The origins of farming in South East Europe. Préhistoire Européene 6: 133–56. 

CREMONESI G., MELUZZI C., PITTI C. and WILKENS 

B. 1984. Grotta Azzura: Scavi 1982 (Nota preliminare). Il Mesolitico sul carso Triestino. Societá per la 
Preistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 5: 21–64. 
CVIJI. J. 1966. Balkansko poluostrvo i ju.noslovenske zemlje. Zavod za izradu ud.benika SFRJ, Beograd. 

.E.UK B. and RADI. D. 2001. Vela spilja: preliminarni rezultati dosada.njih iztra.ivanja. Arheolo.ka 
iztra.ivanja na podru.ju otoka Kor.ule i Lastova. 

Hrvatsko arheolo.ko dru.tvo, Zagreb: 75–118. 

2002. Vela spila: naslage gornjeg pleistocena i donjog holocena. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju 
dalmatinsku 95: 9–51. 

.E.UK B. 1982. Prilog prou.evanju keramike impresso-cardium na otocima Lo.inju i Cresu. Arheolo.ka istra.ivanja na otocima Cresu i Lo.inju. Izdanja Hrvatskog arheolo.kog dru.tva 7. Hrvatsko 
arheolo.tvo, Zagreb: 19–32. 

DAHL G. and HJORT A. 1976. Having herds: pastoral herd growth and household economy. University of Stockholm, Stockholm. 

DEDIJER J. 1916. La transhumance dans les pays dinariques. Annales de Géographie 25(137): 347–65. 

DIETLER M. 2001. Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of 
Consumption, Commensal Politics and Power in African Context. In M. Dietler and B. Hayden (eds.), 

Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London: 65–114. 

EVANS-PRITCHARD E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford University Press, 
Oxford. 

1951. Kinship and marriage among Nuer. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

FABEC T. 2003. Neolitizacija Krasa (Neolithization of 
the Karst). Arheolo.ki vestnik 54: 73–122. 

FORENBAHER S. and MIRACLE P. 2005. The spread 
of farming in the Eastern Adriatic. Antiquity 79: 
514–28. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

FORENBAHER S. and VRANJICAN T. P. 1985. Vagana.ka pe.ina. Opuscula Archaeologica 10: 1–21. 

FRIEDMAN J. 1974. Marxism, Structuralism and Vulgar Materialism. Man 9, 444–469. 

FRISBIE C. J. and MACALLESTER D. P. (eds.) 1978. 

Navajo Blessingway Singer: the autobiography of 
Frank Mitchell 1881–1967. University of Arizona 
Press, Tuscon. 

GLASS M. 1991. Animal Production Systems in Neolithic Central Europe. BAR International Series 572. 

GODELIER M. 1972. Rationality and irrationality in 
economics. New Left Books, London. 

1977. Perspectives in Marxist Anthropology. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

1978. Infrastructures, Societies and History. Current Anthropology 19(4): 763–71. 

1980. The emergence of Marxism in anthopology 
of France. In E. Gellner (ed.), Soviet and western 
anthropology. Duckworth, London: 3–18. 

GRAYSON D. K. 1981. The effect of sample size on 
some derived measures in vertebrae faunal analysis. 
Journal of Archaeological Science 83: 77–88. 

1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic 
Press, New York. 

GROENMAN-VAN WAATERINGE W. 1993. The effect 
of grazing on pollen production of grasses. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 2: 157–62. 

GUACCI A. 1959. I muri della Grotta del Orso. Tecnica Italiana 24: 3–12. 

GUILAINE J. 1993. Questions ouvertes sur la néolithisation de la haute vallée de l’Aude. In J. Guilaine, 

M. Barbaza, J. Gasco, D. Geddes, J. Coularou, J. E. Brochier, F. Briois, J. André, G. Jalut and J. L. Vernet 
(eds.), Dourgne: derniers chasseurs-collecteurs et 
premiers éleveurs de la Haute-Vallée de l’Aude. Centre d’Anthropologie des Sociétés Rurales/Archéologie en Terre d’Aude. Carassonne, Toulouse: 365–97. 
HALSTEAD P. 1996b. The development of agriculture 
and pastoralism in Greece: when, how, who and 
what. In D. R. Harris (ed.), The spread of agriculture 
and pastoralism. UCL Press, London: 296–309. 

1998. Mortality models and milking: problems of 
uniformitarianism, optimality and equifinality. Anthropozoologica 27: 3–20. 

1996a. Pastoralsim or hosuehold herding? Problems of scale and specialization in early Greek 
animal husbandry. World Archaeology 28(18): 
20–42. 

HAYDEN B. 1990. Nimrods, piscators, pluckers and 
planters: the emergence of food production. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 31–69. 

2001. Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In M. Dietler and B. Hayden 
(eds.), Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic 
perspectives on food, politics, and power. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London: 
23–64. 

2003. Were luxury foods the first domesticates? 
Ethnoarchaeological perspectives from Southeast 
Asia. World Archaeology 34(3): 458–69. 

HIGGS E. S. and WHITE P. J. 1963. Autumn killing. 
Antiquity 37(148): 282–89. 

INGOLD T. 1980. Hunters, pastoralists and ranchers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

1986. The appropriation of nature. Essays on 
human ecology and social relations. Manchester University Press, Manchester. 

KELLEY K. B. 1994. Pastoralism, material culture and 
the market in the Southwestern United States. In C. 
Chang and H. A. Koster (eds.), Pastoralists at the periphery. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon: 62–78. 

KELLEY K. B. and WHITLEY P. M. 1989. Navajoland: 
family settlement and land use. Navajo Community College Press, Tsaile (Arizona). 

KINTIGH K. W. 1984. Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. 
American Antiquity 49(1): 44–54. 

1989. Sample Size, Significance and Measures of 
Diversity. In R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones (eds.), 
Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. Cambridge 
Univeristy Press, Cambridge: 25–36. 

KOMPAN D., KASTELIC D., KAVC S., KERMAUNER A., 
ROGELJ I. and VIDRIH T. 1996. Reja drobnice. Kme.
ki glas, Ljubljana. 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

KOZ£OWSKI J. K., KOZ£OWSKI S. and RADOVANOVI. I. 1994. Meso- and Neolithic Sequence from the 
Odmut Cave (Montenegro). Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warszawa. 

KU.IR S., BABI. K. & KOZARI. Z. 2005. .ivotinjske 
kosti iz Vele spile na otoku Kor.uli. Vela spila: vi.eslojno pretpovjesno nalazi.te – Vela Luka, otok 
Kor.ula. Centar za kulturu Vela Luka, Vela Luka. 

LEBAN V. 1950. Nanos: gospodarska povezava s sosedstvom. Geografski vestnik 22: 100–37. 

LEBEN F. 1988. Novoodkrite prazgodovinske plasti 
v jamah na Krasu. Poro.ilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 16: 65–76. 

LEROI-GOURHAN A. 1988. Gib in beseda, I–II. .kuc, 
FF, Ljubljana. 

LUIKART G., GIELLY L., EXCOFFIER L., VIGNE J.-D., 
BOUVET J. and TABERLET P. 2001. Multiple maternal origins and weak phylogeographic structure in 
domestic goats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 
98(10): 5927–32. 

LYMAN R. L. 1994. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

MALEZ M. 1975. Kvartarna fauna Crvene stijene. In 
.. Basler (ed.), Crvena stijena: Zbornik radova. Zajednica Kulturnih Ustanova, Nik.i.: 147–69. 

1979. Osnovne crte paleolitika i mezolitika u Hrvatskoj. Radovi Jugoslovenske akademije znanosti i umetnosti. Razred za prirodne znanosti 
383(18): 117–53. 

1987. Pregled paleoliti.ka i mezoliti.ka kultura 
na podru.ju Istre. Arheolo.ka istra.ivanja u Istri 
i Hrvatskom primorju. Izdanja Hrvatskog arheolo.kog dru.tva 11/1. Hrvatsko arheolo.ko dru.tvo, Pula: 3–48. 

MALEZ M., SLIEP.EVI. A. and SRDO. D. 1979. Odredivanje starosti metodom radiaktivnog ugljika 
kvartarnim naslagama na nekim lokalitetata u dinarskom kr.u. Radovi Jugoslovenske akademije znanosti i umetnosti. Razred za prirodne znanosti 383 
(18): 227–71. 

MARKOVI. .. 1985. Neolit Crne Gore. Filozofski fakultet, Centar za arheolo.ka istra.ivanja, Beograd. 

MARKOVI. M. 1971. Sto.arska kretanja na Dinar-
skim planinama. Zbornik za narodni .ivot i obi.aje Ju.nih Slavena 45. 

1980. Narodni .ivot i obi.aji sezonskih sto.ara na 
Velebitu. Zbornik za narodni .ivot i obi.aje Ju.
nih Slavena 48: 5–139. 

MARX K. and ENGELS F. 1968. Manifesto of the Communist party. Penguin, London. 

MARZOLINI G. 1971. Gli scavi nella Grotta degli Zingari. Annali Associazione XXX Ottobre – Club Alpino Italiano 5: 57–69. 

MCCARTNEY P. H. and GLASS M. F. 1990. Simulation 
Models and the Interpretation of Archaeological Diversity. American Antiquity 55(3): 521–36. 

MELUZZI C., PITTI C., RADMILI A. M. and WILKENS 

B. 1984. Il Mesolitico nella Grotta Lonza. Il Mesolitico sul carso Triestino. Societá per la Preistoria e 
Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 
56: 109–30. 
MIHAJLOVI. D. 1996. Upper palaeolithic and Mesolithic chipped stone industries from rock-shelter of 
Medena Stijena. In D. Srejovi. (ed.), Prehistoric Settlements in Caves and Rock-shelters of Serbia and 
Montenegro I. Centre for Archaeological Research 

16. The University of Belgrade, Belgrade: 9–60. 
MIHAJLOVI. D. and DIMITRIJEVI. V. 1999. Lea fin 
du Paléolihique Supérieur et le Mésolithique dans le 
Monténégro. évolution des techniques et du mode 
de subsistance. In A. Thévenin (ed.), L'Europe des 
dernierss chasseurs. CTHS, Paris: 391–98. 

MIRACLE P., GALANIDOU N. and FORENBAHER S. 
2000. Pioneers in the hills: early Mesolithic foragers 
at .ebrn Abri (Istria, Croatia). European Journal of 
Archaeology 3(3): 293–29. 

MIRACLE P. 1996. Diversification in Epipaleolithic 
subsitence strategies along the Eastern Adriatic 
Coast: a simmulation approach applied to zooarchaeological assemblages. Atti della Societá per la 
Praistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia 9: 33–62. 

1997. Early holocene foragers in the Karst of 
northern Istria. Poro.ilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 24: 43–62. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

2001. Feast or famine? Epipaleolithic subsistence 
in the northern Adriatic Basin. In M. Budja (ed.), 
Documenta Praehistorica 28: 177–97. 

MIROSAVLJEVI. V. 1971. Jamina Sredi dans l’ile de 
Cres. In (ed.), UISPP, Epoque préhistorique et protohistorique en Yougoslavie (Belgrad 1971). Beograd: 102–05. 

MLEKU. D. 2003. Early herders of the Eastern Adriatic. In M. Budja (ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 

30: 139–51. 
MONTAGNARI KOKELJ E. 1993. Prehod iz mezolitika v neolitik na Tr.a.kem krasu. Poro.ilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 21: 
69–84. 

1998. Some comments on the Vla.ka Group or 
“Gruppo dei Vasi a Coppa” in the Trieste Karst in 
the light of recent data. Preistoria Alpina 34: 
245–51. 

MOSER K. 1899. Der Karst und seine Hölen. F. H. 
Schimpff, Triest. 

MÜLLER J. 1994. Das ostadriatische Frühneolitikums. Die Impresso-Kultur und die Neolithisierung des Adriaraumes. Volker Spiess, Berlin. 

PAINE R. 1971. Animals as capital: comparision 
among northern nomadic herders and hunters. Anthropological Quartely 44: 157–72. 

PAYNE S. 1973. Kill-off patterns in sheep and goats: 
the mandibles from Asvan Kale. Anatolian studies 

23: 281–303. 
PETRUCCI G. 1997. Resti di fauna dai livelli neolitici 
e post-neolitici della Grotta del Mitreo nel Carso di 
Trieste (Scavi 1967). Atti della Societá per la Praistoria e Protoistoria della Regione Friuli-Venezia 
Giulia 10: 99–118. 

POGA.NIK M., CESTNIK V., CURK A., JUNTES P., KOSEC M. and ZADNIK T. 1998. Zdravje in bolezni drobnice. Kme.ki glas, Ljubljana. 

POHAR V. 1986. Kostni ostanki mezolitskega najdi..a Pod .rmukljo pri .embijah (Ilirska Bistrica). 

Poro.ilo o raziskovanju paleolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 14: 11–20. 

RIEDEL A. 1968. I Mamifer domestici della Caverna 
dei Ciclami nel Carso Triestino. Atti e Memorie del-
la Commissione Grotte “E. Boegan” 82: 79–110. 

1969. Resti di animali domestici preistorici della 
Grotta Gigante sul carso Triestino. Atti e Memorie 
della Commissione Grotte “E. Boegan” 9: 107–12. 

1975. La fauna epipaleolitica della Grotta Benussi. Atti e Memorie della Commissione Grotte “E. 
Boegan” 15: 123–44. 

ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1995. Making first farmers younger: the West European Evidence. Current Anthropology 36: 346–53. 

2000. Milking caprines, hunting pigs. In P. Row-
ley-Conwy (ed.), Animal Bones, Human Societies. Oxbow, London: 124–32. 

2003. Early domestic animals in Europe: imported 
or locally domesticated? In A. J. Ammerman and 

P. Biagi (eds.), The widening harvest: the Neolithic transition in Europe: looking back, looking 
forward. Archaeological institute of America, Boston (MA): 99–117. 
RUSSELL N. 1998. The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the faunal assemblage from Konispol Cave, 
Albania. In H. Buitenhuis, L. Bartosiewicz and A. 
Choyke (eds.), Archaeozoology of the Near East III. 
Groningen Institute of Archaeology, Groningen: 145– 

99. 
SAHLINS M. 1972. Stone age economics. Aldine, 
Chichago. 

SALZMAN P. C. 2004. Pastoralists: equality, hierarchy and the state. Westview, Boulder (Colorado). 

SCHULDENREIN J. 1998. Konispol Cave, southern Albania, and correlations with other Aegean caves occupied in the Late Quaternary. Geoarchaeology: An 
International Journal 13: 501–26. 

SHENNAN S. 1988. Quantifying archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, 

SHERRAT A. 2002. Diet and cuisine: farming and its 
transformations as reflected in pottery. In M. Budja 
(ed.), Documenta Praehistorica 29: 61–71. 

1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In I. Hodder, G. 


Dimitrij Mleku/ 

Isaac and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the past. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 261–306. 

1983. The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in 
the Old World. World Archaeology 15(1): 90–104. 

1997b. Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. 

1997a. The Secondary Exploitation of Animals in 
the Old World (revised). Economy and Society in 
Prehistoric Europe. Edinburgh University Press, 
Edinburgh: 199–228. 

SLICHER VAN BATH B. H. 1963. The agrarian history of Western Europe AD 500 – 1850. Arnold, 
London. 

SMERDEL I. 1989. Ov.arstvo na Pivki: transhumanca od srede 19. do srede 20. stoletja ali trije “ov.arji”: etnolo.ka razprava. Lipa, Koper. 

1999. The three “Sheepmasters”. Transhumance 
in Pivka (Slovenia) from the middle of the 19th 
to the middle of 20th century. In L. Bartosiewicz 
and J. H. Greenfield (eds.), Transhumant pastoralism in Southern Europe. Recent Perspectives 
from Archaeology, History and Ethnology. Archaeolingua, Budapest: 197–212. 

SORDINAS A. 1969. Investigation of the prehistory 
of Corfu during 1964–1966. Balkan studies 10(2): 
392–424. 

SREJOVI. D. 1974. The Odmut Cave – a new facet 
of Mesolithic culture of the Balkan Peninsula. Archeologia Iugoslavica 15: 3–6. 

STEFFE DE PIERO G. 1978. Note sui resti faunistici 
racolti nella Grotta del Mitreo (Carso Triestino). Quaderni di Storia Antica ed Epigrafia dell'Universita 
degli Studi di Trieste 29: 31–38. 

STINER M. C. 1991. Food procurement and transport 
by human and non-human predators. Journal of Archaeological Science 18: 455–82. 

1994. Honor among thieves: a zooarchaeological study of neanderthal ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton(NJ). 

TERRAY E. 1969. Le marxisme devant les sociétés 
“primitives”. Maspero, Paris. 

THOMAS J. 1993. Discourse, Totalization and ‘The 
Neolithic’. In C. Tilley (ed.), Interpretative Archaeology. Berg, Oxford: 357–94. 

TRINGHAM R. 1971. Hunters, fishers and farmers 
of Eastern Europe 6000–3000 BC. Hutchinson, London. 

TURK I., MODRIJAN Z., PRUS T., CULIBERG M., .ERCELJ A., PERKO A., DIRJEC J. and PAVLIN P. 1992. 
Podmol pri Kastelcu – novo ve.fazno najdi..e na 
Krasu, Slovenija. Arheolo.ki vestnik 44: 45–96. 

TURK M. and TURK I. 2004. Part 2: Mala Triglavca. 
Archaeological finds. In I. Turk (ed.), Vikotrjev spodmol and Mala Triglavca: Contributions to understanding the Mesolithic period in Slovenia. Opera 
Instituti archaeologici Sloveniae 9. ZRC–SAZU, Ljubljana: 176–96. 

UMEK E. 1956. Prispevki k zgodovini ov.jereje na 
Krasu in slovenski Istri. Slovenski etnograf X: 71– 

77. 
VILFAN S. 1957. Podobe iz nekdanje .ivinoreje med 
Trstom in Slavnikom. Kronika V(2): 69–88. 

VIN..AK T. 1989. Kuda idu “horvatski nomadi”. Studia ethnographica 1: 79–98. 

VOORIPS A., GIFFORD D. P. and AMMERMAN A. P. 
1978. Towards an evaluation of sampling strategies: 
simulated excavations using stratified smapling designs. In J. Cherry, C. Gamble and S. Shennan (eds.), 

Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology. 
BAR British Series 205: 227–61. 

VUKELI. D. 1973. Ov.arstvo na na.im otocima. Oto.
ki ljetopis Cres – Lo.inj 1: 183–96. 

WACE A. J. B. and THOMPSON M. S. 1914. The nomads of Balkans. Methuen, London. 

WILKENS B. 1991. Il ruolo della pastorizia nelle economie preistoriche dell'Italia centro-meridionale. In 

R. Maggi, R. Nisbet and G. Barker (eds.), Archeologia della pastorizia nell'Europa meridionale II. 
Rivista di Studi Liguri 57. 81–94. 
WOBST H. M. 1974. Boundary conditions for Paleolithic social systems: a simulation approach. American Antiquity 39(2): 174–78. 


The ethnography of the Cyclops> Neolithic pastoralists in the eastern Adriatic 

1976. Loational relationshis in Palaeolithic society. Journal of human evolution 5: 49–58. 

ZILHAO J. 1993. The spread of agro-pastoral economies across Mediterranean Europe: a view from far 
west. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 6: 5– 

63. 
1997. Maritime pioneer colonisation in the early 
Neolithic of the west Mediterranean. testing the 
model aginst the evidence. Poro.ilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika 24: 19–42. 

ZVELEBIL M. 1986. Mesolithic prelude and Neolithic 
Revolution. In M. Zvelebil (ed.), Hunters in transition. Mesolithic societies in temperate Eurasia and 

their transition to farming. Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge: 5–16. 

1995. Neolithization in Eastern Europe: A View 
from Frontier. Poro.ilo o raziskovanju paleolita, 
neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji 22: 107–52. 

2001. The agricultural transition and the origins 
of Neolithic society in Europe. In M. Budja (ed.), 
Documenta Praehistorica 28: 1–26. 

ZVELEBIL M. and LILLIE M. 2000. Transition to agriculture in eastern Europe. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's first farmers. Cambridge University Press, 
Cambridge: 57–92.